Keynote Speech: WasteMINZ Conference
Kia ora tatou. My warmest greetings to you all.
It's a pleasure to be here with you at this year's WasteMINZ Conference — the flagship event for New Zealand's waste, resource recovery, and contaminated land sectors.
For over 30 years, this conference has been a space for industry leaders and innovators to come together — to be inspired, to share ideas, and to shape the future of this essential work.
Thank you for the opportunity to join you today.
As I begin, I'd like to acknowledge Parul Sood, Chair of the WasteMINZ Board, along with the board members, CEO Nic Quilty and her team, and all of today's delegates.
I also want to recognise the ongoing work of WasteMINZ members — your contribution to the sector is important and appreciated.
Today, I'd like to update you on several key areas I'm working on as Minister for the Environment.
Over the past year and a half, I've been focused on delivering the Government's priorities for waste, contaminated sites, and broader environmental challenges.
We know the waste sector has long-standing issues.
But these challenges come with opportunities to improve outcomes for both the natural world and our communities.
Before I expand on the Government's work on waste, I'd like to start with some announcements.
Last year, as part of Budget 2024, I announced the Government has changed the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to allow the waste disposal levy to be spent on a wider range of activities.
As part of this, levy funds were allowed to support local authorities with the costs of managing waste from emergencies.
We know the frequency and magnitude of emergency events are increasing, partly due to the rise in severe weather events.
Emergency events often generate large volumes of waste, which needs to be dealt with quickly.
Today, I am pleased to confirm that we have now established emergency waste funding.
The funding will support councils with the cost of managing waste following an emergency, including repairing or replacing damaged waste infrastructure.
The Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes, recent cyclones, the Auckland Anniversary floods, and many other large-scale events have underscored the importance of resilient waste management and minimisation facilities and services.
So far, the costs of managing waste caused by these events have been dealt with on an ad-hoc basis, with no standing funds available to support councils.
The emergency waste funding will give councils timely access to funding to deal with waste in the aftermath of emergency events.
This will reduce the financial burden of these events on central and local government.
The simple application process means councils will be able to quickly and easily access funding.
Waste management in emergency events is a critical service to get up and running quickly, to reduce public health risks and support communities to get back on their feet.
This new funding will help councils and communities when they need it most.
Now, I would like to draw your attention to a new report on construction and demolition waste, which I know is a topic you will be keenly interested in.
Construction projects are essential to growing our economy.
However, they also leave behind a staggering amount of waste, which places a burden on New Zealand's landfills and the environment.
Yesterday, the Ministry for the Environment published the first national baseline report for construction and demolition waste.
This baseline measure is the first of its kind in New Zealand.
It will help us evaluate the state of construction and demolition waste, giving us a starting point for comparing changes over time.
The national baseline report provides an overview of how much construction and demolition waste New Zealand is sending to landfill, and what materials make up this waste stream.
The results show that construction and demolition waste is New Zealand's largest waste stream and highlight the significant role that surplus soil and rubble play.
To cover off a few key statistics from the report:
An estimated 5.25 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste was disposed at levied facilities (class 1-4) in 2023. This represents almost 70 per cent of all waste disposed at levied facilities.
Of all levied construction and demolition waste disposed, nearly 80 per cent of that waste is soil or rubble.
Of the remaining construction and demolition waste, timber, plastics, plasterboard and textiles (i.e. carpet) make up notable proportions of the overall waste stream.
Further to these findings, as many of you will know, last month I met with the WasteMINZ sector group on surplus soils.
This was to discuss the group's proposal to develop a national soils management framework through a Waste Minimisation Fund grant.
I would like to thank Nic Quilty, Parul Sood, Rod Lidgard and James Corbett for taking the time to meet with me to discuss this important issue.
I understand managing surplus soils is a long-standing challenge, with no national rules or clear guidance on how to reuse them.
The national baseline report highlights the scale of the problem.
Valuable soil resources are being lost to landfill, with clean or slightly contaminated soils often unnecessarily landfilled.
This contributes to landfill overuse, emissions, and high project costs.
For these reasons, I am pleased to confirm today that I support the WasteMINZ proposal to fund a national soils management framework.
Ministry for the Environment officials will be working with WasteMINZ to develop a phased approach for addressing these issues.
Details are still to be finalised, and the sector will be kept updated.
Following these announcements, I'd like to now move on to our waste strategy and work programme.
You may be aware that I recently launched the Government's strategy to reduce waste and improve how it's managed in New Zealand.
The strategy sets out the Government's approach to reducing the environmental and economic harm caused by waste.
Alongside that, I confirmed a comprehensive waste work programme to implement the strategy's goals.
You'll be aware of some changes made late last year to existing waste policies.
We're reducing costs to ratepayers by leaving decisions about kerbside collections, including food scraps, up to local councils.
The Waste Minimisation Fund will continue to support councils that choose to adopt these services.
We've also removed the 2025 deadline to phase out all PVC and polystyrene food and drink packaging.
We have had a positive response from industry on this decision as it gives them more time to adopt alternatives, while ensuring that new regulations are practical and workable.
These adjustments support our waste strategy while minimising cost-of-living pressures.
Our waste work programme is well underway, and I'd like to start by highlighting the proposed amendments to our waste legislation.
These changes would replace the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the Litter Act 1979, with the aim of reducing inefficiencies and providing greater clarity around the roles of central government, local government, and the wider waste sector.
We recently consulted on these proposals, which aim to make the legislative framework clearer and more effective.
Consultation closed on 1 June, and I want to sincerely thank everyone who took the time to make a submission.
Officials are now carefully considering that feedback to help inform the policy development.
The aim is to introduce the new legislation before the next general election.
We also recently asked New Zealanders to share their views on proposed regulations to improve the way waste from commonly used farm plastic products is managed.
We're proposing new regulations to support a national product stewardship scheme covering agrichemical containers and other farm plastics, such as bale wrap.
As someone who has lived on a farm almost all my life, I know how important this is.
It would bring together the services of existing schemes Agrecovery and Plasback, simplifying recycling and disposal for farmers and growers, and expanding access into a nationwide service.
This scheme would be funded through an advance disposal fee and offer free, nationwide take-back services.
And it won't just benefit farmers—sectors like forestry, tourism, hospitality, and manufacturing could also participate.
We have had strong engagement and feedback throughout the consultation process.
Thank you to everyone who shared their valuable insights.
In addition to the consultation on farm plastics, I'd like to provide a brief update on the progress of other product stewardship schemes.
Product stewardship schemes are designed to ensure everyone in a product's life cycle shares responsibility to reduce its environmental impact at the end of its life.
The Tyrewise scheme is a strong example of this principle in action.
Tyrewise addresses the estimated 6.5 million tyres that reach end of life in New Zealand each year.
Since going live last September, the scheme has collected and repurposed more than 2.8 million tyres into fuel and other useful products.
It is also on track to exceed its first-year targets – an incredible achievement.
I commend everyone involved in the development and daily operation of the scheme for their dedication and impact.
I also want to acknowledge the efforts of everyone involved in the accredited synthetic refrigerants scheme, known as Cool-Safe.
This scheme has been operating since 1993 and has now successfully collected over 600,000 kilograms of synthetic refrigerants, significantly reducing their environmental impact.
We are actively working with this scheme and the wider industry to support the responsible end-of-life management of these gases.
Earlier this year I received the Plastic Packaging Product Stewardship scheme co-design recommendations report.
I want to sincerely thank everyone who contributed to this report – it represents the culmination of over two years of dedicated work.
We will carefully consider the recommendations and continue to work with stakeholders to plan the next steps in developing this important scheme.
Work is also progressing on electrical and electronic products (e-waste).
I'm aware safe battery disposal is a growing concern for the sector, as improperly disposed of batteries pose significant fire risks.
There is currently a high level of activity in the battery space, with multiple stakeholders across industry and government actively engaged.
This momentum is encouraging, and I look forward to seeing continued progress toward a safe, more sustainable approach to managing e-waste in New Zealand.
Another area of focus focuses is remediating contaminated sites, including historic landfills vulnerable to weather events.
Historic landfills can be compromised by erosion, storm surges, rainfall events, high river levels and flooding.
There are hundreds of historic landfills and contaminated sites around New Zealand vulnerable to severe weather.
Remediating these sites is vital for protecting our environment from harm.
No-one wants a repeat of the Fox River landfill event in 2019.
Communities should not be left dealing with the aftermath of old landfill breaches.
Acting early to remediate these sites also saves money in the long run.
Councils have been asking for more support – and now they have it.
Last year, I opened the new Contaminated Sites and Vulnerable Landfills Fund, a $20 million fund to support councils and landowners.
This fund replaces the previous Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund and significantly increases support.
Regional, unitary and territorial authorities can now apply.
The Ministry is actively supporting councils with applications.
There has been great progress already, like the remediation project at Tāhunanui Beach in Nelson where $2.9 million of Government support has helped remove more than 10,000 cubic metres of contaminated material from underneath the beach carpark.
This project is a great example of what this new fund can support.
More information is on the Ministry for the Environment website.
I would like to now move onto our work in improving recycling.
Standardising the materials accepted in kerbside recycling was a vital first step — sending a clear signal to businesses and households about what can be recovered through kerbside systems across New Zealand.
Thank you to everyone who helped develop this policy.
There is still work to do, but the new Recycling Leadership Forum is a great next step.
The forum is exploring challenging kerbside issues, including the tricky items that don't currently fit the system.
I'm watching their work with interest and expect to receive their first report on potential solutions soon.
Plastic is part of daily life, and while it has benefits, it creates far-reaching waste problems.
On the international stage, New Zealand is playing a part in negotiating a treaty to tackle plastic pollution globally.
Our delegation is heading to the next round of negotiations in Geneva in August.
Domestically, we continue to reduce waste and support recycling innovation.
The latest Our Environment 2025 report shows that our landfills received 11 per cent less waste per capita in 2023 than the peak in 2018.
The Waste Minimisation Fund is providing grant funding to upgrade resource recovery centres, transfer stations, and materials recovery facilities to increase the volume and quality of recovered plastic materials.
The fund is also supporting the construction of processing infrastructure to facilitate the reuse of this recovered material, stimulating the local economy and reducing our reliance on overseas markets.
We're managing hard-to-recycle plastics and working with industry to move away from problematic packaging like PVC and polystyrene.
Thank you for your efforts.
I understand that tomorrow, Ministry for the Environment officials will be speaking to the waste work programme in more detail.
I encourage you to attend and ask any questions you may have.
In closing, I want to thank you for your time, for your contributions, and for your commitment to innovation. Your leadership matters.
Together, we are building a more resilient and sustainable New Zealand—for our people, our economy, and our environment.
I wish you all the very best for the rest of the conference.
Thank you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Flawed And Predetermined: Postscript On Waikato Medical School Decision
The business case used to justify the Government's decision to establish a third medical school at Waikato University '…seemed to have a predetermined outcome: to favour the Waikato medical school the National Party took to the last election.' This was how NZ Herald Political Editor Thomas Coughlan reported a 'deeply concerned' Professor Warwick Bagg, Dean of Medical and Health Sciences at Auckland University (27 July): Predetermined outcome? I discussed this issue in my previous Otaihanga Second Opinion post (26 July): Poor process, 'chumocracy and cosyism means likely poor outcome. Drawing upon the use of terminology previously discussed by Bryce Edwards, Director of the Integrity Institute, I focussed on the poor decision-making process describing it as being based on a: … 'chumocracy' of elites who are connected by what he [Auckland University economics professor] calls 'cosyism'. I summarised the approved new Waikato medical school as follows: The new medical school is to provide a four-year medical degree for students who already are graduates with a non-medical degree to work as general practitioners (or as other rural doctors) in regional and rural areas. The medical degree at the existing two medical schools, Auckland and Otago, is five years. The advocated expectation is that the proposed Waikato Medical School will be graduating 120 doctors a year once it is up and running. With its opening scheduled for 2028 the first graduates should start working as general practitioners or other rural doctors at the earliest in 2037. This gap comprises both the time at the medical school and the time as resident (junior) doctors in training. I also quoted what was arguably Edwards most biting conclusion of the process: The Waikato medical school greenlight might be a political win for a few, but it's a loss for New Zealand's standards of governance. It undermines confidence that our health investments are made wisely and fairly. And it should prompt some soul-searching in Wellington: if this is how we make big decisions now, what does that say about who really runs the country? The politics of timing My own concluding comment was about the timing of the health minister's release of the business case supporting the decision – 6.45pm Friday 25 July. My post was published shortly after this release so I could only give the claim of $50 million dollars per year savings a cursory look. However, I focussed on the politics of the timing; that is, releasing complex material at a time when media scrutiny was most difficult. I finished up by stating that: If the difficult to substantiate claim of $50 million savings per year stood up to rigorous scrutiny it would have been released at a time convenient for media scrutiny. But 'chumocracy' and 'cosyism' necessitated otherwise. Subsequently, on 29 July, I was Interviewed by Michael Laws on the rightwing media online outlet The Platform: Breaking down the controversy. Drilling down into the 'business case' The key 'business case' material was commissioned by government from the Sapere business consultancy rather than drawing upon the relevant expertise and experience from within the health system (of which there is much). As Thomas Coughlan reported in his above-mentioned article: With the Waikato option only narrowly ahead of the others after a cost-benefit-analysis, a tweak to the assumptions behind the business-case options might have changed the outcome. Sapere advised on three options based on a 'total lifetime cost' over 16 years (2026-2042): Increasing the intake of students at the existing medical schools at Auckland and Otago universities was costed at $10.9 billion. A joint specialist medical training programme focused on rural health run by both university medical schools costed at $10.2 billion. The new medical school proposal at Waikato costed at $9.1 billion. Sapere also claimed that the third above option (Waikato) has a narrowly better benefit-cost ratio than the second (joint Auckland-Otago). Specifically, the former had a ratio of 1.99 (meaning that each dollar spent produced $1.99 in benefit) whereas for the latter the ratio was 1.8 ($1.80 in benefit). If this was taken at face value, then the Government made the right decision despite the poor process. There might have been some justification for Health Minister Simeon Brown's triumphant reported claim that this was a 'game-changer for the long-term growth of our medical workforce in New Zealand'. However, that is a huge 'if'. To begin with, the capital cost for the Waikato school option of $232 million was far greater than the Auckland-Otago joint school option cost of $81.5 million. This $150.5 million higher cost is unsurprising given that whereas Auckland and Otago would be expanding existing infrastructure, Waikato would be largely starting from scratch. Unfair assumptions Sapere argued that ongoing operational costs over the same 16 years for Waikato were estimated to be $361.6 million compared with $508 million for the joint Auckland and Otago option. However, Professor Bagg countered this by advising that '…this modelling made unfair and inaccurate assumptions about the existing two medical schools that put them at a disadvantage.' The argument of lower operational costs for the Waikato proposal largely centres on it being a shorter programme (that is, four years rather than five). However, when the usual three years required to achieve an undergraduate university degree, which are also government subsidised, are factored in (as they should be) the 'tweaking' referred to by Coughlan comes into play. As reported by Coughlan, Bagg pointedly notes that: … the cost of turning Waikato's students into graduates who can be admitted into the school isn't reflected in the business case. Lifting those costs out of the business case made Waikato look better overall. In Bagg's own words: They are focused on the four-year graduate programme … they haven't focused on the three years that they'll have to do to get into that medical school. Bagg also identified another way in which Waikato's high capital costs for Waikato were 'offset'. That is, how the business case found 'more benefits for the Waikato medical school'. This is because of the assumption that far more Waikato graduates will go on to be GPs, and work rurally, than graduates from the proposed Auckland-Otago joint rural school. The assumption was that whereas 38% of Waikato graduates would become GPs, it would only be 33% for the joint rural training programme. In the Waikato medical school's case if taken at face value, the cost-benefit ratio would weigh 'heavily' in Waikato's favour. According to Bagg, Sapere (who provided cost-benefit analysis for the business case) did not use 'the data we provided them' to calculate the GP figure for the option of increasing capacity at Auckland and Otago medical schools. In fact, rather than 23%, already '…about 35%' of graduates from Auckland and Otago medical schools are working as GPs eight years after graduating. Sapere's lower figure came from a survey of graduates' intentions when they graduated from medical school, not what they actually ended up doing after undertaking resident (junior) doctor training, which includes general practice placements (including rural). Sapere's assumptions for the number of GPs graduating from the Waikato medical were based on figures from the rural GP medical school in Wollongong which similarly had a post-graduate four-year degree. In my view basing such an important assumption on one similar example raises a further concern about speculation. The final word On 29 July Otago Daily Times journalist Matthew Littlewood covered further concerns over the robustness of the business case: Flaws in medical school business case. His article included disappointment over the quality of the business by Otago University Pro Vice Chancellor (health sciences) Associate Professor Megan Gibbons. She began by saying, referring to his comments in the above-mentioned Coughlan article: We agree with University of Auckland dean of medical and health sciences professor Warwick Bagg regarding a business case that contains a number of obvious flaws including significant analysis gaps and some speculative assumptions. But the final word should be left to former Otago University health policy professor Robin Gauld (currently Executive Dean of the Bond Business School at Bond University in Queensland). Noting that the differences between the options were 'so infinitesimal' that Waikato could potentially carry the greatest risk and describing the Waikato medical school as a 'mega project', he advised that: It could end up being that Waikato will actually be much more expensive than was going to be apparent right now when this decision was taken. And some of the challenges, such as getting all the clinical placements lined up, which they admit in the business case will be challenging, could be more challenging than anticipated.' So, they're going to be relying on quite a bit of altruism and goodwill to get all the placements lined up. So, I think like any grand project, such as the new Dunedin hospital, there's a lot more in this than you could just read out of a business case. There's a heck of a lot more to it. It's going to be much, much more complex. Very wise words. This is the kind of wisdom that the political decision-makers over the new medical school chose to ignore. Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.
1News
an hour ago
- 1News
Change coming to rules for residential sheds, garages
Homeowners will soon be able to build small structures like garden sheds, sleepouts and garages closer to their property boundaries without requiring building consent following regulatory changes announced by the Government today. Cabinet agreed to remove the minimum distance required between single-storey buildings under 10sqm and a property boundary or other residential building, and reduce it to one metre for buildings between 10 and 30 square metres. Previously, these structures needed to be set back from boundaries by at least their own height unless a building consent was obtained. The changes, which would be made by amending Schedule 1 of the Building Act, were expected to take effect later this year. All building work must still comply with the Building Code and local district plans. ADVERTISEMENT Regulation Minister David Seymour said shrinking section sizes and the cost of living meant forcing people to put sheds in the middle of their lawn or pay for consent to store tools "doesn't make sense". "There is no justification for such generous setback distances on private property," he said. "Today's housing market means space is tight and building costs are high. These types of property developments are practical and affordable improvements. We want people to be able to utilise them without hassle." Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk said the Government did not believe Kiwis should be "bogged down in bureaucracy" when making use of their backyard. "That's a real win for anyone short on space, giving them more freedom to add a bike shed, protect their tools, cover a vehicle, or even create a small sleepout for guests – all without extra paperwork." Seymour said the regulation change had come about due to the Ministry of Regulation's red tape tipline, an online resource where the public could make submissions on regulations that affect them. Larger granny flats able to be built without consent ADVERTISEMENT A granny flat (file image). (Source: The Government also announced earlier this year it would ease rules around granny flats and increase the maximum size that could be built without consent to 70 square metres. An increase to 60 square metres was a National-NZ First coalition agreement, but Housing Minister Chris Bishop said "huge support" meant the Government would go even further. "It's currently far too hard to build the homes New Zealanders need, with even the simplest dwellings tangling up homeowners and builders in red tape." Under the proposal, granny flats could be built without consent if they had a simple design, met the Building Code, were built by authorised builders, and if the council was notified before and after construction. The amendment bill passed its first reading and was currently at the select committee stage, with the report due back next month.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Foreshore and seabed: Govt to pass marine and coastal areas legislation despite Supreme Court ruling
The Government is pushing forward with controversial legislation that affects Māori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed after a Supreme Court ruling raised questions over whether the Government would consider the legislation necessary.
