Notice of Meeting:

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council will be held on:

 

Date:                                                    Wednesday 27 April 2022

Time:                                                   1:00 pm

Venue:                                                Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin

 

Sandy Graham

Chief Executive Officer

 

Council

PUBLIC AGENDA

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Mayor Aaron Hawkins

 

Deputy Mayor

Cr Christine Garey

 

Members

Cr Sophie Barker

Cr David Benson-Pope

 

Cr Rachel Elder

Cr Doug Hall

 

Cr Carmen Houlahan

Cr Marie Laufiso

 

Cr Mike Lord

Cr Jim O'Malley

 

Cr Jules Radich

Cr Chris Staynes

 

Cr Lee Vandervis

Cr Steve Walker

 

Cr Andrew Whiley

 

 

Senior Officer                                               Sandy Graham, Chief Executive Officer

 

Governance Support Officer                  Lynne Adamson

 

 

Lynne Adamson

Governance Support Officer

 

Telephone: 03 477 4000

Lynne.Adamson@dcc.govt.nz

www.dunedin.govt.nz

 

The meeting will be livestreamed on the Council’s YouTube page: https://youtu.be/GcUqOtKccjs

 

Note: Reports and recommendations contained in this agenda are not to be considered as Council policy until adopted.

 

 


Council

27 April 2022

 

 

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                                                                         PAGE

 

1             Public Forum                                                                                                                                                              4

2             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                    4

3             Confirmation of Agenda                                                                                                                                        4

4             Declaration of Interest                                                                                                                                           5

5             Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                                                                    18

5.1       Ordinary Council meeting - 29 March 2022                                                                                    18   

Minutes of Community Boards

6             West Harbour Community Board - 9 February 2022                                                                                19

7             Otago Peninsula Community Board - 3 February 2022                                                                           20

8             Strath Taieri Community Board - 3 February 2022                                                                                   21

9             Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board - 10 February 2022                                                                             22

10           Waikouaiti Coast Community Board - 2 February 2022                                                                          23

11           Saddle Hill Community Board - 17 February 2022                                                                                     24

Reports

12           Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings                                                                                          25

13           Council Forward Work Programme                                                                                                                33

14           2022 New Zealand Masters Games Final Report                                                                                       41

15           DCC submission on ‘Te panoni i te hangarua, Transforming Recycling’                                            53

16           DCC submission on Te Huringa Taraiwa: Te arotake I te pūnaha utu kaiwhakamahi rori | ‘Driving Change: Reviewing the Road User Charges System                                                                                                   83

17           DCC submission on Reducing Pokies Harm consultation                                                                        92

18           Proposed Event Road Closures for May 2022                                                                                           118               

Resolution to Exclude the Public                                                                                                                     130

 

 


Council

27 April 2022

 

 

1          Public Forum

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

2          Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

3          Confirmation of agenda

Note: Any additions must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.


Council

27 April 2022

 

Declaration of Interest

 

  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.         Members are reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

2.         Elected members are reminded to update their register of interests as soon as practicable, including amending the register at this meeting if necessary.

1.           

3.         Staff members are reminded to update their register of interests as soon as practicable.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes/Amends if necessary the Elected Members' Interest Register attached as Attachment A; and

b)     Confirms/Amends the proposed management plan for Elected Members' Interests.

c)     Notes the Executive Leadership Teams’ Interest Register.

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Councillor Register of Interest

6

b

ELT Register of Interest

16

  


Council

27 April 2022

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 April 2022

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council

27 April 2022

 

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council meeting - 29 March 2022

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 29 March 2022 as a correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting  held on 29 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

 

   


Council

27 April 2022

 

Minutes of Community Boards

West Harbour Community Board - 9 February 2022

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the minutes of the West Harbour Community Board meeting held on 09 February 2022

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of West Harbour Community Board held on 9 February 2022 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

27 April 2022

 

Otago Peninsula Community Board - 3 February 2022

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the minutes of the Otago Peninsula Community Board meeting held on 03 February 2022

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Otago Peninsula Community Board held on 3 February 2022 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

27 April 2022

 

Strath Taieri Community Board - 3 February 2022

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the minutes of the Strath Taieri Community Board meeting held on 03 February 2022

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Strath Taieri Community Board held on 3 February 2022 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

27 April 2022

 

Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board - 10 February 2022

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the minutes of the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board meeting held on 10 February 2022.

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board held on 10 February 2022 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

27 April 2022

 

Waikouaiti Coast Community Board - 2 February 2022

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the minutes of the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board meeting held on 02 February 2022.

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Waikouaiti Coast Community Board held on 2 February 2022 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

27 April 2022

 

Saddle Hill Community Board - 17 February 2022

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Notes the minutes of the Saddle Hill Community Board meeting held on 17 February 2022

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Saddle Hill Community Board held on 17 February 2022 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

   


Council

27 April 2022

 

Reports

 

Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings

Department: Civic

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to show progress on implementing resolutions made at Council meetings. 

2          As this report is an administrative report only, there are no options or Summary of Considerations.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

 

Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Council meetings as attached.

 

discussion

3          This report also provides an update on resolutions that have been actioned and completed since the last Council meeting. 

NEXT STEPS

4          Updates will be provided at future Council meetings.

 

Signatories

Author:

Lynne Adamson - Governance Support Officer

Authoriser:

Clare Sullivan - Manager Governance

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Public Open and Closed Actions

27

b

Council Annual Plan Actions

31

  



Council

27 April 2022

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 April 2022

 

PDF Creator



Council

27 April 2022

 

 

Council Forward Work Programme

Department: Corporate Policy

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to provide the updated forward work programme for the 2021-2022 year (Attachment A). 

2          As this is an administrative report only, there are no options or Summary of Considerations. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Notes the updated Council forward work programme as shown in Attachment A.

 

DISCUSSION

3          The forward work programme is a regular agenda item which shows areas of activity, progress and expected timeframes for Council decision making across a range of areas of work. 

4          As an update report, the purple highlight shows changes to timeframes.  New items added to the schedule are highlighted in yellow. Items that have been completed or updated are shown as bold. 

5          The forward work programme contains items from the action list where the action has resulted in a report to be presented back to Council.  Items have been closed on the action list and incorporated in the forward work programme.

NEXT STEPS

6          An updated report will be provided for the June 2022 Council meeting.

 

Signatories

Author:

Sharon Bodeker - Corporate Planner

Authoriser:

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Forward work programme - April 2022

35

  


Council

27 April 2022

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Council

27 April 2022

 

 

2022 New Zealand Masters Games Final Report

Department: Community and Planning

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust has requested Council underwrite $106,655 in losses for the 2022 New Zealand Masters Games, resulting from the event’s COVID-related cancellation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Approves the underwrite of $106,665 for the 2022 New Zealand Masters Games.

 

BACKGROUND

2          The New Zealand Masters Games (the Games) are held in Dunedin every two years.  In recognition of the contribution the Games makes to the Dunedin economy, the Dunedin City Council financially supports the Games.

3          The Games are the largest regularly occurring event in Dunedin, bringing significant numbers of visitors to the city, and providing an economic benefit of $3 m - $4 m.  In 2022, the Games were to be held from 5 – 13 February.

4          The New Zealand Masters Games Ltd owns the New Zealand Masters Games event, with Whanganui and Dunedin being franchise holders.  The Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust was established in 2008 to manage the Dunedin Games on behalf of the Dunedin City Council, which hold the franchise rights to the biennial event in Dunedin up to and including 2036.

5          In October 2021 Government released the COVID-19 Protection Framework utilising Vaccine Passes and limiting attendee numbers under certain traffic light settings.

6          By mid-January 2022, a total of 3,323 competitors had registered for the Games.  This was a decrease of 1,462 participants from the 2020 event. 

7          On 23 January 2022 there was a nationwide change in traffic light status to Red.  Under the Red Traffic Light outdoor events were limited to 100 people.  This requirement resulted in the Trust being unable to undertake the Games, and they were cancelled.

DISCUSSION

8          Masters Games has refunded all competitor registration fees, and sport fees, excluding an administration charge of $20 per competitor, reducing projected entry fee revenue from $342,500 to $60,500.

9          As per clause 4.3 of the Service Level Agreement between the DCC and the Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust (Attachment A), the Council has agreed to underwrite the event until 2036.  The Trust must provide a request in writing to the Council preceding the Games with a budget forecast.  Council has the right to decline an underwrite, or to cancel the Games if it views forecast losses to be significant.

10        Following the introduction of the COVID-19 Protection in October 2021, a report was provided on the operational and financial status of the Games to the 23 November 2021 Council meeting.  The report confirmed that the Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust would seek an underwrite by Council of losses, if the event was cancelled due to COVID-19.  The report also requested Council approval to proceed with the Games.  At the time it was estimated that the Games might require an underwrite of approximately $160,000.  The resolution is as follows:

 

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Rachel Elder):

That the Council:

 

a)         Notes the New Zealand Masters Games operational and financial update.

b)        Notes that should the 2022 New Zealand Masters Games be cancelled due to COVID the Trust would request an underwrite from Council.

c)         Approves the 2022 New Zealand Masters Games proceeding.

Motion carried (CNL/2021/203)

11        As per the table below the Trust has a total deficit of $106,665 for the period July 2020 to June 2022, taking into account all committed expenditure:

Revenue

Registration Fees

$60,464

DCC Funding

$220,720

Corporate Sponsorship

$100,000

Gaming Trusts

$65,000

Interest and Sundry recoveries

$1,673

Total

$447,857

 

Expenditure

Salaries and Wages

$294,899

Contracted Positions

$26,000

Other staff/Board costs

$8,053

Administration, Operating Costs, Volunteers, Information Services

$134,601

Marketing and Promotion

$58,607

Games Village

$30,621

Sundry Costs and Bank Fees

$1,741

Total

$554,522

Deficit

-$106,665

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

12        The Council underwrites the loss of $106,665 for the 2022 New Zealand Masters Games, cancelled for COVID-related reasons.

Advantages

·        The underwrite provides sustainability for the Board as it plans for the 2024 New Zealand Masters Games.

·        The underwrite provides confidence to other funders and sponsors on the future of the Games.

Disadvantages

·        The underwrite is unbudgeted in the 2021/22 financial year.

Option Two

13        The Council does not underwrite the 2022 loss of $106,665 for the 2022 New Zealand Masters Games, cancelled for COVID-related reasons.

Advantages

·        The Council does not commit unbudgeted funds.

Disadvantages

·        The Trust is unable to meet its financial commitments.

·        Loss of economic, social, and recreational benefits to the city if the Trust does not have income to plan for the 2024 Masters Games.

NEXT STEPS

14        Staff will action the Council’s decision. 

 

Signatories

Author:

Joy Lanini - Manager Community Development and Events

Authoriser:

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Service Level Agreement Between the Dunedin City Council and Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust 2021 - 2023

47

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the economic, social and recreational well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

 

Contributes

Detracts

Not applicable

Social Wellbeing Strategy

Economic Development Strategy

Environment Strategy

Arts and Culture Strategy

3 Waters Strategy

Spatial Plan

Integrated Transport Strategy

Parks and Recreation Strategy

Other strategic projects/policies/plans

 

The Games contribute to three of Council’s strategies and to the vision Dunedin is one of the world’s great small cities.  The Games reflect Council’s Festivals and Events Plan 2018 – 2023 outcomes in delivering an event that supports the city’s economic and social well-being.

Māori Impact Statement

There is no known impact for Māori.

Sustainability

The Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust has developed a Sustainability Plan that aligns with Te Ao Tūroa – Dunedin Environment Strategy 2016 – 2026 by reducing or offsetting negative impacts on the environment.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications on these plans or strategies.

Financial considerations

The Trust is requesting an underwrite of $106,665, unbudgeted in this financial year.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There is regular engagement with funders, suppliers, sporting organisations, Sporting Associations, service providers, volunteers, participants and other Masters Games organisers.

Engagement - internal

There has been discussion with Finance.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There is a risk for the sustainability of the Games, if recommend option is declined.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

 

 


Council

27 April 2022

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 April 2022

 

 

DCC submission on ‘Te panoni i te hangarua, Transforming Recycling’

Department: Waste and Environmental Solutions

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report seeks approval of a Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) on the Ministry for Environment (MfE) consultation, ‘Te panoni i te hangarua, Transforming Recycling’ (https://environment.govt.nz/news/transforming-recycling).

2          The key topics in this consultation are proposals for a Container Return Scheme, improvements to household kerbside recycling, and separation of food waste from businesses.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Approves the DCC submission, with any amendments, to the Ministry for Environment on ‘Te panoni i te hangarua, Transforming Recycling’.

b)     Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes to the submission.

 

BACKGROUND

3          In 2020, New Zealand sent 3.38 million tonnes of waste to class 1 municipal landfills. It is estimated that nationally only 28% of materials are recycled, and the other 72% is sent to landfill.

4          The MfE’s consultation ‘Te panoni i te hangarua, Transforming Recycling’ proposes key programmes to transform New Zealand’s waste sector, aiming to enhance the recovery rates of resources. The three proposals in the consultation are:

·        A national Container Return Scheme

·        Standardising household kerbside recycling

·        Requiring businesses to separate food waste for diversion

5          These three proposals are aimed at improving New Zealand’s low recovery rate of containers and single use packaging, reducing our high litter rate, reducing confusion in households over what can or cannot be recycled through kerbside services, and preventing the disposal of organic material to landfill.

DISCUSSION

6          Key points contained in the Container Return Scheme consultation are:

·        Container Return Schemes are successful overseas. Schemes have resulted in economic gains from recovery of materials and have achieved behaviour change.

·        A New Zealand Container Return Scheme (NZ CRS) would complement kerbside recycling by addressing away-from-home consumption of beverages that kerbside collections cannot capture. A NZ CRS would also reduce the volume of beverage containers managed through kerbside, which would reduce costs to ratepayers and councils, reduce contamination, and reduce landfill and litter costs.

·        The Scheme proposed by MfE would exclude milk bottle containers as they are generally consumed at home and recovered via kerbside recycling services. Excluding them from the Scheme would also avoid increasing the cost of a household staple item.

7          The draft DCC submission on the Container Return Scheme contains the following key themes:

·        The Proposed 20c refund per beverage container is an acceptable level to encourage uptake. Setting the refund too high could reduce the affordability of products for households.

·        In addition to the refundable amount, there would be a non-refundable scheme fee of approximately 3 – 5 cents to cover core scheme costs. This additional cost could be absorbed by the producers rather than passed on to consumers.

·        In addition to the proposed items to be included in the scheme, hard to recycle plastics such as 4 and 7 should be included to avoid leaving them as problems for council kerbside collections.

·        The submission supports the exclusion of fresh milk containers and proposes that dairy milk alternatives, e.g., soy milk, should also be considered for exclusion.

·        The recovery network design should follow the ‘mix model return’ scheme to provide easy access for returning containers.  Larger beverage retailers are considered the most convenient locations for the public when returning containers.

·        The ‘deposit financial model’ should move costs from councils and ratepayers to beverage producers – making them financially responsible for the cost of container recycling.

·        The submission supports an industry led ‘not for profit’ model where any revenue is solely used to support the NZ CRS.

8          The key point contained in the Kerbside Recycling Improvements consultation is:

·        There is no national consistency in what materials are collected at kerbside, which leads to confusion in households and high levels of contamination. As a result, materials that are potentially recyclable are sent to landfills.

9          The draft DCC submission on the Kerbside Recycling Improvements contains the following key themes:

·        The proposed standardisation of materials is aligned with the DCC’s kerbside recycling collections adopted as part of the 10 Year plan 2021-31, including food scraps collections.

·        Acceptability criteria for materials should be determined alongside consistent national guidance and in consultation with collection contractors.

·        Privately run kerbside collection services should be required to report diversion rates to Central Government.

·        The DCC currently collects glass separately and will continue to do so under the new contract. There is an opportunity for less frequent collections and reduced costs when the NZ CRS is implemented.

·        Most small population centers with less than 1,000 residents in the DCC territorial area already receive a kerbside collection service (i.e. Middlemarch or Waikouaiti).

10        The key point contained in the separation of food waste from businesses consultation is:

·        MfE proposes that food waste should be diverted according to the waste hierarchy. Food waste is first prioritised for food rescue for those in need, then to be used as animal feedstock to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, and lastly composted to reinstate nutrient cycles.

11        The draft DCC submission on the separation of food waste from businesses contains the following key themes:

·        All businesses should be diverting food waste from landfill by 2030 as this will help achieve the DCC’s net-zero carbon goal by 2030.

·        The service should be funded by targeted rates for businesses, rather than residents paying for commercial activities.

·        The requirement for separation of food waste from businesses should be phased in based on access to infrastructure for diversion, not by how much food waste the business produces. This approach requires less resources for the roll out of these new rules for the same (or better) outcome.

·        All food businesses should be required to divert food waste. Non-food businesses in towns of less than 1,000 people may be exempt, in line with the kerbside services proposal.

12        The proposals in the consultation are aligned with the proposed national Emissions Reduction Plan, including the initial work on the proposed circular and bioeconomy strategy, and a national energy strategy.

13        The proposed standardised kerbside services align with the new kerbside services that the DCC is adopting under the Waste Futures programme. A point of difference between the MfE’s proposed services and the DCC’s future services is the optional green waste collection. MfE is requesting feedback on this approach in the consultation.

14        The consultation identifies Dunedin as one of the four metropolitan areas of New Zealand without the infrastructure for businesses to separate food waste. Under the Waste Futures programme, Dunedin will be developing the infrastructure for diverting organic material from landfill in 2023/2024. This is ahead of the timelines proposed by MfE.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option – Approve the submission on ‘Te panoni i te hangarua, Transforming Recycling’

Advantages

·        Aligns with the vision, targets, and objectives of Council’s Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2020.

·        Aligns with the DCC’s emissions reduction ambitions and Zero Carbon 2030 target.

Disadvantages

·        There are no known disadvantages

Option Two – Do not provide a submission

Advantages

·        There are no known advantages.

Disadvantages

·        Missed opportunity to provide feedback and promote key work that aligns with the DCC’s waste minimisation and zero carbon objectives.

NEXT STEPS

15        If approved, the submission will be sent to the MfE for consideration by 8 May 2022.

16        If the Council does not approve the DCC submission, no further action is required.

17        At the conclusion of the consultation period, the MfE will report to the Minister for the Environment on submissions received and develop final advice.

 

Signatories

Author:

Leigh McKenzie - Waste Minimisation Officer, Waste and Environmental Solutions

Authoriser:

Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

 

Title

Page

 

a

Draft Submission to MfE 'Te panoni i te hangarua, Transforming Recycling' Consultation

59

 

 
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

 

Contributes

Detracts

Not applicable

Social Wellbeing Strategy

Economic Development Strategy

Environment Strategy

Arts and Culture Strategy

3 Waters Strategy

Spatial Plan

Integrated Transport Strategy

Parks and Recreation Strategy

Other strategic projects/policies/plans

 

Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2020, and Council’s goal of achieving net zero carbon by 2030.

Māori Impact Statement

This consultation proposes changes for the way waste is managed in Aotearoa New Zealand. The proposals are to improve environmental and community outcomes, so are likely to be of interest to Māori. The new proposals will apply to all households that receive kerbside collection services, including marae.

Sustainability

The new initiatives proposed in this consultation are expected to have long-term implications for greenhouse gas emissions, waste minimisation and management in Aotearoa New Zealand.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

While the decision to submit has no implications on the 10 Year Plan, the proposed initiatives are likely to have implications for future waste infrastructure and services such as the frequency of household kerbside collections.

Financial considerations

There are no known financial implications as a result of this submission.

Significance

The decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Staff took part in external engagement led by WasteMinz to discuss the proposed strategy and new legislation. No other external engagement has been undertaken for this report.

The consultation is open to the public and active community groups are being contacted to make them aware of the opportunity to submit.

Engagement - internal

Staff from Waste and Environmental Solutions and Zero Carbon programme have had input into the draft submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards are likely to be interested in the proposals in this consultation, and the effects this would have on their communities. The waste and diversion services to households are of interest to all parts of the city, including those areas covered by Community Boards.

 

 


Council

27 April 2022

 

Draft Submission to the Ministry for Environment’s Consultation ‘Te panoni i te hangarua, Transforming Recycling’

Introduction

The Dunedin City Council (DCC) supports the three parts of the Ministry for Environment’s consultation. These three parts are;

·        implementing a Container Return Scheme (CRS),

·        improving household kerbside recycling,

·        and requiring business food waste to be separated.

The vision of the DCC Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2020 is:

DCC have a duty to protect and enhance Dunedin’s natural environment and resources for those generations who come after us (mō tatou, ā, mō kā uri ā, muri ake nei).

Dunedin is actively committed to zero waste, inclusive of a circular economy, to enhance the health of our environment and people by 2040.

The DCC advocates for these proposals as they are expected to reduce Aotearoa New Zealand’s large quantities of waste to landfill.  

Previous Decisions

 

At the 2018 Local Government New Zealand conference, 96% of delegates supported the adoption of the LGNZ ‘Waste Manifesto’, developed in conjunction with the WasteMINZ Territorial Authorities Officers’ Forum, which included calls for a Container Return Scheme.

 

As part of the DCC’s Waste Future’s Programme, Council has adopted a separate kerbside collection model for recycling, glass, food waste, and residual waste. This approach is aligned with the Ministry for the Environment’s (MfE) ‘Recommendations for Standardisation of Kerbside Collections in Aotearoa[1]. DCC is committed to a standardised household kerbside collection model to help increase consistency, reduce confusion for householders, improve material quality, and reduce residual waste to landfill.

In December 2021, Council approved a submission to the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation ‘Te kawe i te haepapa para, Taking Responsibility for Our Waste’. The DCC submitted that ’A comprehensive Container Return Scheme should be implemented for beverage containers.’ (CNL/2021/212).

The DCC has adopted the circular economy as its approach to managing waste through the DCC Waste Minimisation and Management Plan (2020). The DCC has also adopted a target to achieve net-zero carbon by 2030. Achieving this requires reducing waste to landfill as this is a source of greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 


 

Part 1: Container Return Scheme

Q1: Do you agree with the proposed definition of a beverage?

The DCC agrees with the proposed definition of a beverage.

 

Q2: Do you agree with the proposed definition of an eligible beverage container?

The DCC agrees with the proposed definition of an eligible beverage container.

 

Q3: Do you support the proposed refund amount of 20 cents?

The DCC agrees the proposed refund amount of 20 cents would be a good incentive to return the container. We recognise a higher refund amount could achieve a greater return but could also potentially reduce affordability. A lower refund amount may not result in the desired outcomes of the scheme. 

DCC notes that the proposal also includes a non-refundable scheme fee, estimated to be 3 to 5 cents plus GST per container. This fee is added to the cost of the beverage plus refundable deposit and will be used to cover the operational costs of the scheme. DCC recommends that MfE regularly review the refundable amount to balance the scheme's effectiveness against potential affordability issues.

As part of taking responsibility for their packaging, producers should absorb the costs associated with operating this new scheme, rather than including an additional cost to consumers. The  opportunity to partake in a NZ CRS to achieve greater recycling is important for buy in from the community.

 

Q4: How would you like to receive your refunds for containers? Please select all that are relevant and select your preference.

The DCC believes that all options should be considered in order to maximise scheme participation.

·        electronic funds transfer (e.g., through a scheme account or mobile phone app)

·        cash

·        vouchers (for money or equivalent value product purchase)

·        donations to local community organisations/charities

·        access to all options

 

DCC notes that MfE proposes that a negotiated agreement between Councils and their contracted service providers must be in place to receive any redeemed deposits for beverage containers collected through the kerbside service. DCC recommends that all councils be encouraged to use this income to support kerbside collection services and help reduce the cost of kerbside collections for households.

 

 

Q5: Do you support the inclusion of variable scheme fees to incentivise more recyclable packaging and, in the future, reusable packaging?

The DCC supports the inclusion of variable scheme fees.

 

Q6: Do you agree with the proposed scope of beverage container material types to be included in the NZ CRS?

Please refer to Question 7.

 

Q7: If you do not agree with the proposed broad scope (refer to Question 6), please select all container material types that you think should be included in the scheme.

The DCC agrees with the inclusion of all beverage container material types being;

• glass

• plastic (PET 1, HDPE 2, PP 5, and recyclable bio-based HDPE and PET)

• metal (e.g. aluminium and non-ferrous metals such as steel, tinplate and bi-metals)

• liquid paperboard

 

The DCC also recommends packaging made of problematic materials, such as plastics 4 and 7 (plastics 3 and 6 will be phased out by 2025), should be included to incentivise producers to change their product design. If not included, it could leave the problematic materials to Councils to deal with and find solutions. It also does not incentivise these producers to improve the sustainability of their products.

 

Alternatively, introducing legislation to regulate packaging design could help address problematic materials and ensure they are designed to be easily recyclable or reusable (as supported by the DCC in the ‘Te kawe i te haepapa para, Taking Responsibility for Our Waste’ consultation in December 2021).

 

Clear communication and education for consumers, led by MfE, of what is included in the scheme will be key to its success. For example, communication should provide specific information such as whether dirty containers are accepted or rejected from the scheme, and whether container lids should be put back on. To encourage and sustain behaviour change, the DCC recommends regular public updates on how the scheme is working and the scheme’s efficiency.

 

Q8: Do you support a process where alternative beverage container packaging types could be considered on case-by-case basis for inclusion within the NZ CRS?

The DCC supports a process where alternative beverage container packaging types should be considered.

 

Q9: Do you agree with the proposal to exempt fresh milk in all packaging types from the NZ CRS?

The DCC agrees with the proposal to exempt fresh milk in all packaging types from the NZ CRS, recognising that fresh milk is a staple product consumed by many New Zealanders. The scheme fee and refundable deposit could have unwarranted financial impacts on households already recycling most fresh milk containers through kerbside collection systems. However, MfE should encourage milk companies to improve their practices and hold responsibility for their packaging. Alternative kinds of milk (e.g., soy) that can be used for medical/allergy reasons should also be considered for exemption.

 

 

Q10: Do you support the Ministry investigating how to target the commercial recovery of fresh milk beverage containers through other means?

In Dunedin, 4% of plastic containers in domestic kerbside rubbish are plastic dairy bottles (by weight)[2]. Therefore, the DCC supports the Ministry in investigating how to target the recovery of fresh milk beverage containers for recycling.  

Q11: Do you support the Ministry investigating the option of declaring fresh milk beverage containers made out of plastic (eg, plastic milk bottles and liquid paperboard containers) a priority product and thereby including them within another product-stewardship scheme?

The DCC supports an investigation into declaring fresh milk beverage containers as a priority product. This would compel manufacturers and beverage producers to look at container recovery options or develop and use alternatives. For example, Spout Alternatives Ltd supplies fresh milk to cafés using refillable kegs in the Otago and Canterbury regions.

Q12: We are proposing that beverage containers that are intended for refilling and have an established return/refillables scheme would be exempt from the NZ CRS at this stage. Do you agree?

The DCC agrees that established return/refillable schemes should be exempt from the NZ CRS. Refilling plays an important part in transitioning from a linear economy to a circular economy. Refilling saves energy, consumption of raw materials, manufacturing new products, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and minimises waste.

The return/refillable model is a crucial circular economy model, and learnings from established schemes will help develop additional schemes in the future. The DCC notes that this model may require a logistical management system different to the CRS. For example, this system is likely to need its own collection and sterilisation infrastructure. We suggest that the return/refillable model could be partially funded from the CRS surplus and MfE Waste Levy funds. Employment opportunities are likely to emerge from this scheme, but will also contribute to the cost of this service.

 

Q13: Should there be a requirement for the proposed NZ CRS to support the New Zealand refillable market (eg, a refillable target)?

The DCC agrees with the proposed NZ CRS supporting the refillable market. The refillable market allows moving towards the higher part of the waste hierarchy.

This could be provided through:

o   Promotional support - NZ CRS could promote and subsidise successful refill programmes to producers who want to change their business to a more sustainable model.

o   Refill schemes at the point of sale should be encouraged.

o   Education for producers about refillable schemes, by promoting how these contribute to a more circular and low-waste economy.

o   Education for the public on the benefits of using refillables

 

Q14: Do you have any suggestions on how the Government could promote and incentivise the uptake of refillable beverage containers and other refillable containers more broadly?

o   Allocate some of the unclaimed refundable deposit money to provide grants for research and development of refillable packaging.

o   Provide an incentive via a discount at time of refill.

o   Products in the NZ CRS could be sterilised for reuse rather than recycled. Glass could be a good product for this approach.

o   Create awards to recognise businesses who follow good practice and innovation.

 

Q15: Are there any other beverage packaging types or products that should be considered for exemption?

The DCC submits that dairy milk alternatives should also be considered for exemption as they can be used for medical/allergen reasons. Excluding these will keep the scheme equitable for household essentials. Apart from dairy alternatives, there are no other beverage packaging types or products that should be considered for exemption.

The products included and excluded in the NZ CRS should be reviewed at regular intervals (i.e. annually).

 

Q16: Do you agree that the size of eligible beverage containers would be 3 litres and smaller?

The DCC submits that given the proposed return locations and methods, i.e. over the counter, reverse vending machines, community group collection points, the storage of larger containers could be an issue. However, to avoid confusion and capture as much as possible for recycling, DCC supports the inclusion of larger containers into the CRS.

The exclusion of containers over 3 litres may have unintended consequences, i.e., manufacturers moving to larger containers to avoid inclusion in the CRS.

Larger containers could have alternative drop-off locations such as suitable community group collections points or transfer stations with the necessary storage space. In addition, DCC supports  a higher refundable deposit for larger containers.

 

Q17: Do you think that consumers should be encouraged to put lids back on their containers (if possible) before they return them for recycling under the scheme?

The DCC supports a separate collection for lids at the return point. This way, more lids would be returned for recycling, as evidenced in overseas beverage container return schemes. The sorting system for the returned recycling needs to be capable of separating lids that remain on containers.

Messaging for kerbside collections would need to be consistent regarding whether lids should be left on or off. This can confuse kerbside recycling users and should be reflected in a nationally standardised collection system. Central government and producers will need to invest in sorting infrastructure to standardise the national network.

A decision to reattach lids, and the reasoning for it, will need to be communicated to the public to encourage good practice. 

Q18: Do you agree that the scheme should provide alternative means to capture and recycle beverage container lids that cannot be put back on containers? If so, how should they be collected?

The DCC agrees that the scheme should provide alternative means to capture and recycle beverage container lids that cannot be reattached. Lids that cannot be reattached contribute to litter[3] and waste. The DCC submits that the lids could be collected by providing the option of removing them into a separate collection at the return point.

Lids that can be refitted should also be collected through the NZ CRS.  

Loose lids could be collected in kerbside collections as long as the recycling sorting infrastructure can capture and separate them.

Lids collected during clean up events could be taken to collection points included in the scheme. In addition, beverage producers could help fund clean-up events via the CRS.

 

Q19: Do you agree that a NZ CRS should use a ‘mixed-return model’ with a high degree of mandated retail participation to ensure consumers have easy access to container return/refund points, as well as the opportunity for voluntary participation in the network by interested parties?

The DCC agrees that the scheme should use a ‘mixed model return’ to ensure consumers' ease of access to return.

The DCC also supports mandated retail participation, as well as the opportunity for voluntary participation in the scheme by interested parties.

 

Q20: Where would you find it easiest to return eligible beverage containers? Please select all that are relevant and rank these from most preferred to least preferred.

The DCC believes the most accessible locations for returns would be (in order of preference);

1.         Supermarkets

2.         Local retail outlets that sell beverages (e.g. dairy, convenience store, bottle shop, petrol station)

3.         Shopping centre/mall

4.         Waste transfer stations with reverse vending machines

5.         Community recycling/resource recovery centres

6.         Commercial recycling facility (e.g. depot, more likely to be located in an industrial zone but accessible for people working in the area).

7.         Other community centres/hubs (e.g. town hall, sports clubs).

 

 

Q21: Retailers that sell beverages are proposed to be regulated as part of the network (mandatory return-to-retail requirements). Should a minimum store size threshold apply?

The DCC agrees a minimum store size threshold should apply. All beverage retailers above the minimum threshold should be regulated to be part of the return network.

The Dunedin District has several small rural community beverage retailers that may not be able to accommodate the scheme. However, there could be an opportunity for community group fundraising collection schemes within these smaller communities, or providing reverse vending machines at waste transfer stations where possible.

And if yes, what size of retailer (shop floor) should be subject to mandatory return-to-retail requirements?

The DCC recommends that a floor area of 100 m2 be considered to provide as many return locations as possible. This would likely exclude the smaller dairy and convenience stores, which might struggle for space and resources to administer the scheme. There may be the need to consider stores applying to be part of the scheme that would otherwise be exempt on a case-by-case basis. 

 

Q22: Do you think the shop-floor-size requirements for retailers required to take back beverage containers (mandatory return-to-retail) should differ between rural and urban locations?

The DCC does not think there should be any difference between rural and urban collection locations. This would create confusion for users and complicate implementation. As noted in Question 21, small beverage retailers wanting to be part of the scheme could be considered on a case-by-case basis. This might be based on the surrounding population and distance to the nearest scheme participating retailer.

If yes, what lower size threshold should be applied to rural retailers for them to be required to take back containers?

Not applicable.

 

Q23: Do you agree that there should be other exemptions for retailer participation?

The DCC agrees that some other exemptions might apply for health and safety reasons e.g., insufficient storage space.

 

Q24: Do you agree with the proposed ‘deposit financial model’ for a NZ CRS?

The DCC agrees with the proposed ‘deposit financial model’, which operates much like a product stewardship scheme. The producer pays the full deposit on each container in the scheme, which provides the deposit float from the scheme's outset. The consumer may not return some containers for the refund, and that money will remain in the scheme and help offset the operating costs, helping to keep fees low. The DC suggestd the non-refundable scheme fee could be reduced over time as the surplus fund increases.

 

Q25: Do you agree with a NZ CRS that would be a not-for-profit, industry-led scheme?

The DCC agrees with a well-regulated, not-for-profit, industry-led scheme. However, strict regulation will be required to avoid any potential conflict of interest or abuse of the system.

The DCC suggests that a framework that prevents the potential for fraudulent activity be developed and shared with beverage producers, importers, and return location operators prior to the implementation of the scheme. The Ministry for the Environment should have the ability to audit any part of the CRS process at any time and should undertake these audits on a regular basis.

Q26: Do you agree with the recovery targets for a NZ CRS of 85 per cent by year 3, and 90 per cent by year 5?

The DCC agrees with the target settings, with subsequent reviews undertaken in years 3 and 5. The review should determine whether the targets have been met, the reasons for success or failure, and the path to achieving future targets, e.g., 95% by 2030. The review should also cover other new products that could be considered for inclusion.

Prior to the first review timeline, the DCC suggests regular reporting to the public on performance of the scheme nationally and regionally.

 

Q27: If the scheme does not meet its recovery targets, do you agree that the scheme design (including the deposit level) should be reviewed and possibly increased?

The DCC agrees with MfE conducting a broad review to determine why the recovery targets may not have been reached. The review outcomes should determine whether an increase in the deposit level would help achieve the recovery target. 

 

Q28: Do you support the implementation of a container return scheme for New Zealand?

The DCC supports the implementation of a container return scheme because it is expected to:

o   Provide beneficial environmental outcomes, including:

o   increased capture rates of these containers for recycling,

o   reduced greenhouse gas emissions by reducing waste to landfill.

o   Benefit kerbside collection services by potentially reducing collections needed, and therefore;

o   reduce greenhouse gas emissions from collection vehicles,

o   reduce targeted rates for residents for kerbside services.

o   Provide beneficial economic/social outcomes, including:

o   create employment opportunities in a circular economy.

 

The DCC notes, that to be successful, dropping off beverage containers should be easy, quick, and available at popular locations. This will ensure public buy-in to the scheme. Appropriate, MfE led, education will also assist the public on how to best use this service.

 

Q29: If you do not support or are undecided about a CRS, would you support implementation of a scheme if any of the key scheme design criteria were different? (eg, the deposit amount, scope of containers, network design, governance model, scheme financial model, etc). Please explain.

Not applicable.

 

 

 

Q30: If you have any other comments, please write them here.

The DCC submits that:

o   Producers should be regulated to create packaging that allows a circular economy. For example, the use of multi-composite materials should be discouraged, while the use of materials with a great recycling potential be favoured.

o   Participants of the scheme should promote it (e.g., advertise the CRS on their website).

o   The CRS should encourage producers to design out waste.

o   Education for consumers and producers will be key to ensure uptake of the scheme.

 

Part 2 - Improvements to Household Kerbside Recycling

Proposal 1: Collecting a standard set of materials

Q 31: Do you agree with the proposal that a standard set of materials should be collected for household recycling at kerbside?

The DCC supports the proposal that a standard set of materials should be collected for household recycling at kerbside.

The DCC previously recommended that the standardising kerbside collection work programme[4] should continue when answering Question 5 of the consultation document ‘Te kawe i te haepapa para, Taking Responsibility for our waste’.

The DCC participated in developing the report titled ‘Recommendations for standardisation of kerbside collections in Aotearoa’ and endorses the recommendations in this report. These recommendations were adopted in the DCC 10 year plan 2021-2031 when Council approved the four bins plus one – separate food and green waste collection option as part of a new residential kerbside collection contract. Work is now underway to provide these services from 1 July 2023.

The DCC believes that this standard set of materials should be collected by all kerbside collectors (Council-led and private operators) regardless of the origin of the waste (i.e., households or other establishments such as schools, offices, or staff rooms where sources of waste are similar).

A consistent approach to recycling will help local communities and New Zealand Aotearoa build a sustainable, long-lasting behaviour change. The DCC expects this proposal to have beneficial effects in the district as a significant part of the population is made of university students who maybe from a different region and are used to a different recycling system.

There will be less public confusion if the same standard applies everywhere, whether at home, at work, or when visiting public places, such as a hospital or a sports club.

Standardising the materials collected will also allow councils, and ultimately ratepayers, to benefit from confidence in sustainable markets for the material collected through kerbside recycling, while equally ensuring that these materials are diverted from landfill.

 

Q 32: Do you agree that councils collecting different material types (in addition to a standard set) might continue to cause public confusion and contamination of recycling?

The DCC agrees that national inconsistency with kerbside collections leads to public confusion and contributes to contamination. Community recycling points could provide additional collections for other materials in response to local recycling opportunities.

 

Q 33: Do you think that national consistency can be achieved through voluntary measures, or is regulation required?

The DCC believes that regulation is required.

The DCC supported the Local Government Waste Manifesto that recommended a mandatory set of materials to enable nationally consistent messaging.

The current consultation document refers to overseas examples of failed voluntary measures, demonstrating the need for regulation. With a voluntary approach, the list of materials accepted via kerbside collections may evolve to respond to commodities market loss or a substantial collapse of commodities prices.

A regulatory approach is required to provide a framework on how collectors (i.e., Councils and private operators) would respond to events such as markets collapsing.

 

Q 34: Please tick below all the items from the proposed list which you agree should be included in the standard set of materials that can be recycled in household kerbside collections.

• glass bottles and jars

• paper and cardboard

• pizza boxes

• steel and aluminium tins and cans

• plastic bottles 1 (PET) and 2 (HDPE)

• plastic containers and trays 1 (PET) and 2 (HDPE)

• plastic containers 5 (PP)

 

Q 35: If you think any of the materials above should be excluded, please explain which ones and why.

The DCC supports the collection of all the materials listed above.

The DCC currently collects all these materials with its kerbside recycling collection and intends to continue collecting these as part of the next kerbside recycling collection contract.

The DCC notes that only clean materials as listed above should be collected.

 

Q 36: If you think any additional materials should be included, please explain which ones and why.

The DCC endorses the conclusions in the report titled ‘Recommendations for standardisation of kerbside collections in Aotearoa’ and therefore does not recommend any additional material to be recovered within kerbside recycling collection other than those listed above.

Regular reviews should be carried out to add additional materials as onshore recycling markets are developed as per answer to Question 37. An Mfe led and managed national educational programme will be required if any changes occur to keep the public updated on what is accepted at kerbside

 

Q 37: Do you agree that the standard set of materials should be regularly reviewed and, provided certain conditions are met, new materials added?

The DCC agrees that the list of standard materials collected via kerbside recycling collections should be reviewed and expanded. However, regulations should provide conditions before accepting new items (for example, the development of onshore, sustainable markets). Please see our answer to Question 38.

Additionally, the DCC recommends that instead of removing a class of materials from the list as a result of no longer fitting one or more of the proposed criteria (e.g., not financially viable to collect the product), MfE should consider alternative strategies to avoid these materials ending up in landfills.

 

Q 38: What should be considered when determining whether a class of materials should be accepted at kerbside in the future? (Tick all that apply)

The DCC supports the adoption of the following criteria to determine whether a class of materials can be accepted in kerbside recycling collections.

• Sustainable end markets

• End market solutions are circular and minimise environmental harm

• Viable processing technologies

• Processing by both automated and manual material recovery facilities

• No adverse effects on local authorities, including financial disadvantages

• Supply chains contribute appropriately to recovery and end-of-life solutions for their products

• Other – Further comments below.

 

The DCC proposes two additional criteria to review whether a class of materials should be included with kerbside recycling collections. The first additional criterion is to assess whether the class of materials is best to be dealt with via a Container Return Scheme or a mandatory kerbside recycling collection, or another alternative solution (such as the current soft plastics recovery system). This criterion could require a subset of conditions to determine the most efficient recovery option.

Additionally, the proposed class of materials should not impact the quality of other kerbside collected recyclable materials. For example, one of the criteria raised in this consultation is the separation of fibres from glass.

New materials collected through kerbside recycling collections could cause operational issues at the Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs). Due to the significant number of MRFs in New Zealand, whether public or private, the DCC recommends that to meet the “processing by both automated and manual material recovery facilities” and “no adverse effect on local authorities” criteria, producers and importers of the proposed products should fully compensate the costs of setting up the new sorting equipment. They should also contribute financially to the revised costs associated with ongoing collections and sorting of recyclable products. This financial system could be established via mandatory product stewardship. With such a system, producers and importers could work together, alongside recycling collectors, which may guarantee them a good recovery rate at a relatively low cost.

The timing for adopting new accepted materials to kerbside recycling collections should also be considered so that Councils and other collectors have sufficient time to inform and educate the changes to their service users. Producers and importers of these classes of materials could be part of promoting this message.

When assessing what materials to accept, the environmental outcomes should be considered with the greatest weighting of all the criteria listed above.

 

Q 39: Who should decide how new materials are added to the list?

• The responsible Minister

• Ministry for the Environment staff in consultation with a reference stakeholder group

• Existing Waste Advisory Board

• An independent board

• other (please specify).

 

The DCC recommends that MfE decides on new materials in consultation with a reference stakeholder group.

The DCC agrees that an open and transparent process for accepting new materials based on sound evidence needs to be adopted. The DCC recommends that the proposed reference stakeholder group be a diverse group, including representatives of bigger and smaller territorial authorities.

 

Q 40: Do you agree that, in addition to these kerbside policies, New Zealand should have a network of convenient and easy places where people can recycle items that cannot easily be recycled kerbside? For example, some items are too large or too small to be collected in kerbside recycling.

The DCC agrees that kerbside recycling collections should be complemented by a network of places where people can recycle products that are not easily sorted at an MRF. Many such sites already exist, such as transfer stations, drop off points at supermarkets, and community headquarters. This network is also expected to expand with the introduction of a CRS.

 

Proposal 2: All urban populations should have access to kerbside food scraps collections

Q 41: Do you agree that food and garden waste should be diverted from landfills?

The DCC agrees that food and garden waste should be diverted from landfills.

The DCC is following the recommendations in the report titled “Recommendations for standardisation of kerbside collections in Aotearoa” and is committed to offering weekly food scrap collections to most of its residents as part of the new kerbside collections contract, plus an optional garden waste collection.

The DCC promotes the diversion of organics from landfill to the Dunedin community via education and supports the national Love Food Hate Waste campaign. Dunedin residents can also purchase (at cost price) bokashi food waste bins bin from DCC service centres. The infrastructure currently provided to Dunedin residents includes green waste composting at the Green Island transfer station.

The DCC acknowledges that diverting organics from landfill also contributes to achieving both the DCC’s city-wide Zero Carbon 2030 target and the DCC’s internal emissions reduction goals.

 

Q 42: Do you agree that all councils should offer a weekly kerbside food scraps collection to divert as many food scraps as possible from landfills?

The DCC agrees that food scraps should be diverted from landfills. However, the DCC is mindful of the financial implications of food scraps collections and processing. Such a recovery could result in a significant cost to ratepayers if an organic processing facility needed to be built or organics had to be  transported long distances.

The DCC is following the recommendations in the report titled “Recommendations for standardisation of kerbside collections in Aotearoa” and is committed to offering weekly food scrap collections to most of its residents as part of the new kerbside collection contract.

 

Q 43: Do you agree that these collections should be mandatory in urban areas (defined as towns with a population of 1000 plus) and in any smaller settlements where there are existing kerbside collections?

The DCC would like further details on what constitutes a town with a population of 1,000 plus. A density ratio and minimum area may be more appropriate to define an urban area.

Smaller settlements are usually more rural, and properties are likely to have more space to home compost.

 

Q 44: Do you think councils should play a role in increasing the diversion of household garden waste from landfills? If so, what are the most effective ways for councils to divert garden waste?

• Offering a subsidised user-pays green waste bin?

• Making it more affordable for people to drop-off green waste at transfer stations

• Promoting low-waste gardens (eg, promoting evergreen trees over deciduous)?

• Other (please specify)?

 

The DCC agrees that councils should play a role in increasing the diversion of household garden waste from landfills. However, the DCC cannot suggest the most effective way for councils to divert garden waste due to the different nature of environments at each local authority.

The DCC will offer an optional fortnightly garden waste collection as part of a new kerbside collection contract. This service will not be subsidised as it will be a user-pay service, paid for via a targeted rate. However, economies of scale will mean that this cost will deliver value for money. The DCC has also budgeted for a new composting facility within the Dunedin district as part of the 10 year plan 2021-31. The DCC also promotes and educates residents to adopt home composting for small garden waste.

The option to make garden waste drop-off more affordable at transfer stations raises the question of funding. The DCC considers that Dunedin ratepayers should not be expected to subsidise this service and that charges should be set following the ‘users pay’ principle. Organic waste processing costs are currently much lower than landfill charges, and it is therefore unnecessary to subsidise them.

The DCC is cautious about promoting low waste gardens, as it could have uninentended adverse effects on biodiversity.

 

Q 45: We propose a phased approach to the rollout of kerbside food scraps collections. The timeframes will depend on whether new processing facilities are needed. Do you agree with a phased approach?

The DCC is following the recommendations in the report titled “Recommendations for standardisation of kerbside collections in Aotearoa” and is committed to offering weekly food scrap collections to most of its residents as part of the new kerbside collection contract.

The DCC also notes that Council procurement processes can be lengthy. If a region does not have an organic processing facility, the private sector or councils will have to identify a location for the facility, budget for it, apply for resource consents, and potentially building consents. Councils adopt budgets with their 10 Year Plans, which are next due to be adopted in 2024. Once the funding becomes available, staff can start the procurement process, which typically requires several months. Once a contractor is selected, time is needed to prepare and roll out a new service. It would be necessary for MfE and policymakers to allow Council’s preparation time before adopting their next 10 year plan.

 

Q 46: Do you agree that councils with access to suitable existing infrastructure should have until 2025 to deliver food scraps collections?

• yes, that’s enough time

• no, that’s not enough time

• no, it should be sooner.

 

The DCC cannot answer this question on behalf of other territorial authorities as it has many significant implications for a council.

Please refer to Question 45.

 

Q 47: Do you agree that councils without existing infrastructure should have until 2030 to deliver food scraps collections?

• yes, that’s enough time

• no, that’s not enough time

• no, it should be sooner.

 

Please refer to Question 46. The DCC finds this timeframe acceptable as it is already planning to deliver these services before 2030.

Q 48: Are there any facilities, in addition to those listed below, that have current capacity and resource consent to take household food scraps?

• Envirofert – Tuakau

• Hampton Downs – Waikato

• Mynoke Vermicomposting site – Taupō

• Enviro NZ – new facility planned for the Bay of Plenty in 2023

• Living Earth – Christchurch

• Timaru Eco Compost Facility – Timaru.

 

Not currently in the Dunedin district.

 

Q 49: Are there any additional materials that should be excluded from kerbside food and garden bins? Please explain which ones and why.

We propose to exclude the following non-food products and any packaging from any kerbside collection bins used to divert food scraps and/or green waste from landfills:

• kitchen paper towels / hand towels / serviettes

• newspaper and shredded paper

• food-soiled cardboard containers (eg, pizza boxes)

• cardboard and egg cartons

• compostable plastic products and packaging

• compostable fibre products and packaging

• compostable bin liners

• tea bags.

 

Without being provided with a list of materials proposed to be accepted with organic kerbside collections, it is difficult for the DCC to answer this question. For consistency, the DCC recommends that coffee bags with materials similar to tea bags be excluded from organic kerbside collections. Manufacturers of products that are perceived to be compostable (e.g., tea bags) should be regulated to remove contaminants so that their products become less harmful, and achieve compostability.  MfE led, national education will be required to clarify what materials are included and excluded.

The DCC also recommends that a list of organic materials excluded from kerbside collection be adopted at a national level for consistency, similar to what is proposed for kerbside recycling.

For optimal operations at an organics processing facility, the following materials should be excluded from organic collections: 

·        highly fibrous material such as cabbage leaves, flaxes, palm fronds,

·        stumps, branches / large diameter prunings

·        noxious weeds or pest plants in seed,

·        organics sprayed with herbicide, treated timber,

·        sawdust,

·        soil, rubble, and

·        any other non-organic material.

 

Q 50: For non-food products or packaging to be accepted in a food scraps bin or a food and garden waste bin, what should be taken into consideration? Tick all that apply.

• products help divert food waste from landfills

• products meet New Zealand standards for compostability

• products are certified in their final form to ensure they do not pose a risk to soil or human health

• products are clearly labelled so that they can be distinguished from non-compostable products

• a technology or process is available to easily identify and sort compostable from non-compostable products

• producers and users of the products and packaging contribute to the cost of collecting and processing

 

The DCC recommends that all the above criteria apply when reviewing whether non-food products/packaging should be collected with food scraps or garden waste kerbside collections. 

 

The DCC also recommends verifying with organic processors whether their resource consents allow for the new category of materials to be processed at their facility and can process it before accepting the new material for organic collections.

 

Q 51: If you think any of the materials listed above should be included in kerbside food and garden bins, please explain which ones and why.

The DCC recommends that all the above products be excluded from the materials accepted with organic collections until NZ standards are implemented and guarantee the absence of plastic/pollutants in the final composted product.

Excluding these items will allow service providers to deliver a clear message to users. Allowing items such as tea bags and other compostable packaging will confuse service users as these can contain plastic. Allowing compostable bin liners with organic collections could result in plastic rubbish bags (potentially full of rubbish) being discarded through these organic collections.

The DCC also favours the recycling of unsoiled cardboard, egg cartons and newspapers over composting, as the recycling process allows for the reuse of fibres into new products.

 

Proposal 3: Reporting on household kerbside collections offered by the private sector

Q 52: Do you agree that it is important to understand how well kerbside collections are working?

The DCC supports a better understanding of how private kerbside collections are working nationally, regionally, and within districts. A better understanding of the district waste production and recovery will allow Councils to plan better for future waste minimisation and management work.

The DCC recommends that this data is not limited to kerbside collections only but also includes waste and materials recovered from private drop off points (i.e., transfer stations, drop off points that are part of product stewardship schemes, and Container Return Schemes).

To ensure quality of data and reporting, the MfE should have the authority to audit the private sector’s kerbside collection activity.

 

Q 53: Do you agree with the proposal that the private sector should also report on their household kerbside collections so that the overall performance of kerbside services in the region can be understood?

The DCC supports MfE’s proposal that the private sector reports directly to a separate national entity, as per Question 16 in the DCC’s submission to the ‘Taking Responsibility for Our Waste’ consultation in December 2021. This will enable MfE to continue with the strategic and regulatory functions required for achieving the new waste strategy and implement the new legislation.

The DCC recommends that local (i.e., district level) data from all private collectors be consolidated and made available to councils for sound waste minimisation planning. This will avoid potential mistakes made by councils estimating these figures.

Councils are likely to need more detail than the diversion percentages that are proposed to be available online. Data on tonnages from private kerbside collections will assist councils with their service and waste minimisation planning.

 

Q 54: Do you agree that the information should be published online for transparency?

The DCC acknowledges that all public information can be requested via the Official Information Act and therefore supports that information be published online for transparency. In addition, collated data from all private waste collectors will guarantee the protection of commercially sensitive information.

 

Q 55: Apart from diversion and contamination rates, should any other information be published                    online?

The DCC recommends that additional information should be published online. For example, Material Recovery Facilities, organic processing facilities, landfills, classes of landfills available within a district, and whether the material is processed onshore or offshore. This is a common question received by councils from residents. Positive news should be shared with the public on quantities collected and what materials are being used for to regain trust and transparency.This knowledge could encourage submissions for change, and could foster positive behaviour change. 

The reporting should also include waste and diversion tonnages and tonnages per capita to allow for comparisons between districts.

 

Proposal 4: Setting targets (or performance standards) for councils

Q 56: Should kerbside recycling services have to achieve a minimum performance standard (eg, collect at least a specified percentage of recyclable materials in the household waste stream)?

The DCC considers that calculating a diversion rate will be beneficial for councils to understand how effective their waste minimisation strategies are. The DCC supports a minimum performance standard in principle but has the following concerns.

The DCC questions whether a council with both kerbside recycling and organics collections will be able to easily reach the minimum performance standard or whether additional strategies will need to be implemented. If additional work is required above the provision of kerbside collections to meet the performance standard, this cost should not be borne by ratepayers.

Ratepayers will ultimately bear any financial penalty to councils that do not achieve these performance standards. These penalties will not necessarily assist with a greater kerbside recovery performance. Instead, the DCC recommends that MfE use waste levy funding to provide additional financial support to councils failing to achieve the proposed performance standard, e.g., establishing processing facilities for recyclables or organics in their region. This option would drive better outcomes than financial penalties to ratepayers.

 

Q 57: Should the minimum performance standard be set at 50 per cent for the diversion of dry recyclables and food scraps?

Please refer to the answer to Question 56.

 

Q 58: We propose that territorial authorities have until 2030 to achieve the minimum performance standard, at which time the rate will be reviewed. Do you agree?

With reference to the DCC’s response to Question 56, the 2030 timeline aligns with the targets in the DCC’s Waste Minimisation and Management Plan (2020) and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.

 

Q 59: In addition to minimum standards, should a high-performance target be set for overall collection performance to encourage territorial authorities to achieve international best practice?

The DCC supports a high-performance target in principle for overall collection performance. This would be a national benchmark and would guarantee that all councils aspire to the same diversion rate instead of relying on different targets set in their WMMPs. However, please refer to Question 56 for the DCC’s reservations on how this would be calculated.

Support from producers and importers and the whole sector may be required for councils to achieve any determined targets.

 

Q 60: Some overseas jurisdictions aim for diversion rates of 70 per cent. Should New Zealand aspire to achieve a 70 per cent target?

The DCC has already adopted a diversion rate target of 70% by 2030.

The consultation document refers to the New Zealand Waste Strategy having a proposed target for households to reduce their waste disposal by 60–70 per cent by 2030. The DCC recommends some consistency between the New Zealand Waste Strategy and the legislation to be adopted.

 

 

 

Q 61: What should the consequences be for territorial authorities that do not meet minimum performance standards?

The DCC recognises there may be various reasons that a council may not meet the minimum performance target. Therefore, the DCC recommends that MfE provide technical and financial support to these territorial authorities. This support could require these territorial authorities to meet specific milestones that will ensure they meet the minimum performance standard over time.

 

Proposal 5: Should glass and/or paper/cardboard be collected in separate containers?

Q 62: Should either glass or paper/cardboard be collected separately at kerbside in order to improve the quality of these materials and increase the amount recycled?

• glass separate

• paper/cardboard separate

• separated, but councils choose which one to separate

• status quo – they remain comingled for some councils.

 

The DCC endorses the conclusions of the report titled “Recommendations for standardisation of kerbside collections in Aotearoa” and therefore recommends that glass be collected separately from other materials. This process will ensure good quality and more valuable commodities. In addition, this will significantly reduce the amount of recoverable material to landfill, while improving recyclers' confidence in their purchases.

 

The DCC collects glass separately and intends to keep glass separated with its next kerbside collection contract.

 

Any proposed changes would likely require funding for new bins and the procurement of additional kerbside collections. However, MfE may be able to subsidise this change using waste levy funding.

 

 

Q 63: If glass or paper/cardboard is to be collected separately, should implementation:

• begin immediately

• wait for any CRS scheme design to be finalised

• wait until the impact of a CRS scheme has been observed.

 

The implementation should await the design for the proposed Container Return Scheme and align with council 10 Year Plans. 

 

 

Proposal 6: Should all urban populations have access to a kerbside dry recycling collection?

 

Q 64: Should all councils offer household kerbside recycling services?

The DCC is committed to kerbside recycling services but acknowledges different situations for all districts.

Q 65: Should these services be offered at a minimum to all population centres of more than 1,000 people?

The DCC will continue to offer a service, where possible, to smaller populated areas. The DCC supports servicing urban centres with more than 1,000 people as a minimum. For districts where this may not be feasible, support from MfE may be needed.

 

Q 66: Do you agree that councils without any council-funded kerbside recycling collections should implement these collections within two years of their next Waste Management and Minimisation Plan?

The DCC recognises that implementing a kerbside service would significantly impact ratepayers. Therefore, the DCC recommends that MfE deal individually with the councils without a kerbside recycling service.

 

Q 67: What research, technical support, or behaviour change initiatives are needed to support the implementation of this programme of work?

The DCC agrees with MfE that technical support consisting of best practice case studies, operational policy guidance, and business case development would be helpful for stakeholders to avoid and minimise waste. Collaboration with WasteMINZ could assist with identifying the technical support needed.

More robust technical support and guidance need to be provided to designers (i.e., producers and importers) to ensure that only necessary material is used and waste is designed out.

Professional development could be provided to ensure that the waste industry remains up to date with innovation that would benefit New Zealand Aotearoa and allow central government to meet its carbon reduction targets.

Other support needed includes the implementation of legislation that makes it easier for consumers to have their materials recovered and reprocessed. For example, this legislation might require designers to start by considering waste at the product design stage and include labels that direct consumers to where the material should be placed. In addition, consistent labelling for recyclability, compostability, or disposal to general waste on products and information on the best method to use should assist consumers with gaining certainty and confidence in the recovery of products. 

Producers and importers should also be encouraged to provide further information on how to best dispose of their products when advertising online and, if applicable, refer to their mandatory product stewardship scheme.

Standardising the materials accepted will be vital for achieving the work programme. However, introducing a standardised set of materials could unintentionally create constraints for new opportunities.

Regulating packaging will also be key for delivering the work programme. Packaging should be regulated to ensure it is made of easily recyclable materials such as Plastics 1, 2 and 5, glass, aluminium or tin, or cardboard and paper.

 

Part Three – Separation of business food waste

Proposal: Source separation of food waste is phased in for all businesses.

Q 68: Should commercial businesses be expected to divert food waste from landfills as part of

reducing their emissions?

 

The DCC agrees that commercial businesses should be expected to divert food waste from landfills as part of reducing their emissions. As commercial businesses are responsible for 25% of food waste, exempting them from improving practices will not lead to the change required to address climate change.

 

The DCC recognises that expecting businesses to separate their food waste may add a cost to them in the short term. However, as the cost of disposing of waste to landfill increases via the waste levy, the cost of diverting food waste is expected to become a cost advantage as they will be paying less than disposal to landfill.

 

It would be useful to know whether the services are anticipated to be provided by Councils or by private collectors.

 

The DCC supports MfE’s proposal to prohibit commercial businesses' food waste from going to landfill as part of achieving food waste diversion; however, the DCC would like to know how MfE proposes to enforce a ban on food waste disposal from commercial businesses, and what authority would be responsible for upholding these requirements, and how this activity might be funded.

The new requirement may create an opportunity to collect data on food waste diversion through the new regulation (e.g. quantity of food rescued, diverted for use as animal feed, or composted).

 

The cost for providing infrastructure for businesses to reduce their emissions/waste should not fall on residential ratepayers. Polluter pay’ methods should be considered for funding a such a food waste service. Targeted rates for businesses could be considered for providing the service, including infrastructure.

 

DCC suggests that businesses be required to provide a plan for diverting organics when they become registered. Existing businesses also need to transition to providing these plans. Enforcement for these would need  to be planned and resourced.

 

Q 69: Should all commercial businesses be diverting food waste from landfills by 2030?

The DCC agrees that all identified commercial businesses should be diverting food waste from landfills by 2030. This aligns with the DCC’s goal of achieving net-zero carbon by 2030.

Dunedin does not currently have the infrastructure in place for large scale diversion of food waste; however, the DCC is developing such a facility as part of its Waste Futures project.

This proposal will incur costs for businesses, which we have addressed under Questions 70 and 73.

The DCC also recommends that government organisations should be required to meet the same regulations for separating their food waste, in the same timeframe or sooner. Government organisations are large employers so should not be exempt, and this is an opportunity for government to lead by example.

Q 70: Should separation be phased in, depending on access to suitable processing facilities (eg, composting or anaerobic digestion)?

 

The DCC agrees that requirements for separation should be phased in according to access to infrastructure for the diversion of food waste. This is a significant barrier for businesses without access, and they should be given a longer lead time than those with ready access. The DCC believes that the suggested radius of 150 km is too large and recommends reducing this to 100 km.

 

Q 71: Should businesses that produce food have a shorter lead-in time than businesses that

do not?

 

The DCC submits that lead times should not relate to the quantity of food waste generated. Instead, the main barrier for businesses to divert food waste is expected to be access to infrastructure and services. This simpler approach also requires fewer resources for planning, administering, and regulating the rollout of these new rules for the same (or better) outcome.

 

If MfE decides to phase in the requirements according to the quantity of food waste a business produces as well as according to access to infrastructure, then the DCC recommends that businesses that produce more food waste have a shorter lead time rather than allowing them longer to adjust.

 

 

Q 72: Should any businesses be exempt? If so, which ones?

The DCC submits that businesses in towns with populations of less than 1,000 residents may be exempt from being required to separate food waste, following the rules being used for the separate household kerbside collections. However, food businesses such as producers or those selling food (those registered under the National Food Act) should still be included in being required to separate their food waste, even in towns of less than 1,000 residents. This approach would mean the larger producers of food waste would still be required to improve their practices, but those who have low food waste alongside barriers to accessing the necessary infrastructure are not imposed with an onerous regulation.

Transfer stations may be an opportunity for small businesses in rural areas to divert their organics.

Businesses should be encouraged to improve their practices, but this needs to be considered alongside the infrastructure available and staffing.

 

Q 73: What support should be provided to help businesses reduce their food waste?

Businesses should be informed of their options for separating and diverting food waste. This could include providing examples of how it could be implemented on their site, detailed templates, case studies, and approaches currently used by other businesses.  Education and assistance for businesses through this transition will be crtitical.

Support could also take the form of promotion and funding for food rescue programmes. For example, territorial authorities could be incentivised to offer specific food waste minimisation grants for businesses. The incentive could be structured by ring-fencing a percentage of the waste levy for waste minimisation grants. This is in line with the DCC’s submission for the ‘Te kawe i te haepapa para, Taking Responsibility for Our Waste’ consultation in December 2021, in response to Question 37.

Funding from MfE for the Love Food Hate Waste campaign could be expanded to educate businesses. Also, professional associations could offer workshops and webinars providing food waste reduction education (e.g. Business South). The information in these workshops could demonstrate the financial benefits of investing in food waste reduction and savings from diverting food waste from landfill. This would help businesses understand the positive results they can gain from minimising food waste.

Providing a front facing indicator or rating for businesses performance in diversion of food waste could support businesses who take up best practice. This could be modelled after the food safety grades given to businesses, but instead recognise how the businesses diversion and food waste is managed. Customers may value this and sway their choices, incentivising businesses to take up better practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                               


Council

27 April 2022

 

 

DCC submission on Te Huringa Taraiwa: Te arotake I te pūnaha utu kaiwhakamahi rori | ‘Driving Change: Reviewing the Road User Charges System

Department: Transport

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report seeks approval for a Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) to Te Manatū Waka Ministry of Transport on the Te Huringa Taraiwa: Te arotake: te pūnaha utu kaiwhakamahi rori ‘Driving Change: Reviewing the Road User Charges System’ (RUC consultation). The link to the discussion document is provided here.

2          As submissions closed on 22 April 2022, Te Manatū Waka has agreed to accept a late submission following this meeting if Council approves the submission.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Approves the DCC submission, with any amendments, to Te Manatū Waka on Te Huringa Taraiwa: Te arotake: te pūnaha utu kaiwhakamahi rori Driving Change: Reviewing the Road User Charges System consultation.

b)     Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes to the submission to ensure consistency of language.

 

BACKGROUND

3          The Ministry is seeking feedback on a wide range of potential changes to improve the Road User Charges (RUC) system to improve the operation of the system and support the uptake of low carbon vehicles.

4          RUC are a distance and weight-based tax on diesel vehicles. Revenue raised from RUC is dedicated to transport expenditure through the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF), which is also funded by Fuel Excise Duties (FED) on petrol vehicles and motor vehicle registration fees. These funds are used to pay for investment in land transport activities (e.g., local road maintenance and improvements) by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency and local councils.

5          RUC system was originally introduced in the 1970s to better charge for damage to roads caused by heavy vehicles. There have been limited changes since the introduction of significant numbers of light diesel vehicles, electric vehicles (EVs) and other alternative fuels. EVs are exempt from RUC until 31 March 2024 for light vehicles, and the end of 2025 for heavy vehicles. This is to incentivise the uptake of low emission vehicles.

6          Currently RUC licences are purchased in advance in increments of 1,000km. Since 2012 heavy vehicles have been able to collect and pay RUC through electronic distance recorders, referred to as eRUC.

7          The current consultation considers a broad range of changes to the RUC system. There are three broad types of changes considered:

·        High level policy changes to the purpose and role of RUC

·        Improving and simplifying the RUC system

·        Technical amendments to legislation.

8          The most significant change considered is whether the purpose of RUC could be changed to include charges for externalities such as carbon emissions. This would replace the current exemptions for EVs with a system that sought to charge a differential price based on greenhouse gas emissions of different fuel types used.

DISCUSSION

9          The draft DCC submission is prepared in support of the following key points:

·        use of Road User Charges (RUC) to charge for externalities including greenhouse gas emissions

·        transitioning all vehicles to a distance-based charge that incentivises improved environmental outcomes, rather than a dual system with FED and RUC, and exemptions to RUC based on vehicle type, use or fuel

·        greater use of electronic RUC (eRUC), and reviewing how RUC is managed to make it simpler and more cost effective for end users. 

In addition, the submission requests that Te Manatū Waka to work with councils on enforcement options before implementing any proposals to removing physical vehicle licence labels.

 

Support using RUC to charge for externalities including carbon emissions

10        The DCC submission supports the proposed use of RUC to charge for externalities including greenhouse gas emissions, as it would send clear signals to road users about the carbon cost of their travel. An increased uptake of low emission vehicles would assist with achieving the DCC’s carbon zero target by 2030.

11        The DCC submission is also supportive of the use of some revenue raised through charging for externalities for non-transport interventions, rather than all funds from RUC and FED being invested in land transport activities via the NLTF. The submission notes that, in some cases, non-transport interventions may have greater benefits in reducing carbon emissions through reducing the need to travel (e.g., locating health services in communities, or improving access to online services).

Support transitioning all vehicles to distance-based charging that incentivises environmental outcomes, rather than a dual system with FED and RUC, and exemptions to RUC based on vehicle type, use or fuel

12        It has been widely recognised that there will be impacts on fuel tax revenues as petrol vehicles improve fuel efficiency or are replaced with EVs. The DCC submission acknowledges the benefits of moving away from fuel taxes and shifting vehicles of all fuel types to distance-based charges as a way to future proof transport revenues.

13        The DCC submission notes that not transitioning to one system will likely result in a complicated system, with exemptions for some vehicle types and/or refunds with high transaction costs for dual fuel vehicles (e.g., petrol-electric hybrids) as they will be subject to both FED and RUC once the current exemptions expire in 2024.

Support greater use of eRUC and reviewing how RUC is managed to make it simpler and more cost effective for end users

14        The draft DCC submission agrees with the benefits of greater use of eRUC technology listed in the RUC consultation, which could contribute to:

·        lowering RUC compliance costs through increased automation and ease of use

·        simplifying the administration of off-road trips and refunds

·        reducing tax evasion

·        minimising the administrative burden for the RUC collector and transport operators.

Request that Te Manatū Waka work with councils on enforcement options before removing physical vehicle licences

15        Currently DCC enforcement officers use software to capture the vehicle details by scanning licence labels when enforcing parking infringements and expired licences. There is a concern that without alternative options, e.g. licence plate scanning, removing paper licences would reduce the efficiency of parking enforcement.  The draft DCC submission requests that Te Manatū Waka work with councils and parking software providers to ensure appropriate options are in place to replace the role currently played by paper labels in parking enforcement.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option – Approves the DCC submission, with any amendments, to the RUC consultation

 

16        Approves the DCC submission, with any amendments, to the RUC submission.

Advantages

·        Opportunity to show support for the improvement of the RUC and uptake of low carbon vehicles.

·        Aligns with the objectives of Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy and Carbon Zero 2030 goal. 

Disadvantages

·        There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Does not approve the DCC submission to the RUC consultation

17        Does not approve the DCC submission to the RUC submission.

Advantages

·        There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

·        Missed opportunity to provide feedback into the improvement of the RUC system and uptake of low carbon vehicles.

NEXT STEPS

18        If the Council approves the DCC submission on the RUC consultation, it will be sent to Te Manatū Waka.

 

Signatories

Author:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Authoriser:

Jeanette Wikaira - Manahautū (General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy)

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Draft submission on Te Huringa Taraiwa: Te Arotake I Te Punaha Utu Kaiwhakamari

89

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

 

Contributes

Detracts

Not applicable

Social Wellbeing Strategy

Economic Development Strategy

Environment Strategy

Arts and Culture Strategy

3 Waters Strategy

Spatial Plan

Integrated Transport Strategy

Parks and Recreation Strategy

Other strategic projects/policies/plans

Support for incorporating charges for externalities such as carbon emissions in the RUC system contributes to the Councils target to be net Carbon Zero by 2030. Sending better price signals to consumers about the environmental costs of their travel choices and ensuring that revenue for the NTLF is future proofed for different fuel types supports the implementation of the Integrated Transport strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

Te Manatū Waka – Ministry of Transport’s Māori Strategy aims to improve transport outcomes for Māori in a way that is underpinned by Crown-Māori Treaty of Waitangi partnership obligations and informed by a Kaupapa Māori approach.

Sustainability

If the ability to charge for carbon emissions is incorporated into the RUC system this will have a positive impact on sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications on these plans or strategies that are directly related to a DCC submission on draft rules, standards and values.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications directly related to a DCC submission.

Significance

This is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

No external engagement has taken place on this submission

Engagement - internal

Staff from Transport, Parking Services, Policy and Zero Carbon have had input into the development submission

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

No identified risks

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflict of interest

Community Boards

No known implications for community boards

 

 


Council

27 April 2022

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 April 2022

 

 

DCC submission on Reducing Pokies Harm consultation

Department: Corporate Policy

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report seeks approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) on reducing pokies harm. Reducing pokies harm is a proposal by DIA on options to amend the Gambling (Harm Prevention and Minimisation) Regulations 2004 (the regulations) to reduce harm caused by problem gambling on pokie machines.

2          The changes act as the first stage of the Government’s steps towards better preventing and minimising gambling harm in Aotearoa New Zealand.

3          Submissions close on Thursday 28 April 2021.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Approves the draft Dunedin City Council submission to the Department of Internal Affairs on the options for changes to the Gambling (Harm Prevention and Minimisation) Regulations 2004

 

BACKGROUND

4          Kia Manawanui Aotearoa – Long-term pathway to mental wellbeing, published in 2021 recommended reviewing the Gambling Act 2003, with particular reference to preventing and minimising harm from online gambling and electronic gaming machines (pokies) as a medium-term measure to improve the legislative and regulatory environment to support healthy environments and a mental wellbeing approach.

5          The Department of Internal Affairs is seeking feedback on options for changes to the Gambling (Harm Prevention and Minimisation) Regulations 2004. The options are for amendments to:

·        reduce harm in venues through staff training

·        reduce harm from pokie machines by changing machine features to make them safer

·        reduce harm through stronger compliance mechanisms

6          DCC’s Gambling and TAB Venue Policy took effect on the 14th of April 2021 and takes a sinking lid approach to the number of venues and gambling machines. The Policy meets DCC’s obligations under the Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Industry Act 2020.

DISCUSSION

7          The DCC submission supports the direction that DIA is taking by strengthening the regulations to reduce harm caused by problem gambling.

8          The submission reiterates DCC’s position of a sinking lid on the number of pokie premises and pokie machines outlined by the Gambling and TAB Venue Policy.

9          The submission highlighted key matters raised by the community during DCC’s consultation on its Gambling and TAB Venue Policy between 25 January and 10 March 2021. During the consultation key matters raised were:

·        The importance of minimising gambling related harm in Dunedin

·        The sinking lid policy is slow but effective

·        Funding provided to communities via the proceeds from gambling is essential and there is a lack of alternative funding sources.

10        This submission is in alignment with the Social Wellbeing Strategy’s strategic directions of vibrant and cohesive communities and safe and healthy people.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option – Approve the submission, with any amendments, to the Reducing Pokies Harm consultation

 

11        Approve the draft DCC submission to DIA on the options, with any agreed amendments.

Advantages

·        Opportunity to show support for the DIA’s efforts to reducing harm caused by problem gambling.

·        Opportunity to publicly reiterate DCC’s policy and commitment to the wellbeing of the people of Dunedin.

Disadvantages

·        There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Do not approve the submission

12        Do not approve the DCC submission to DIA on the options.

Advantages

·        There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

·        Missed opportunity to show the support for the DIA’s efforts to reducing harm caused by problem gambling.

·        Missed opportunity to publicly reiterate DCC’s policy and commitment to the wellbeing of the people of Dunedin.

NEXT STEPS

13        If the Council approves the draft submission, it will be sent to DIA for consideration.

14        Staff will follow the Government’s reform programme and provide an update to ELT about any further legislative proposals by the Government in the gambling system.

 

Signatories

Author:

Gina Huakau - Corporate Policy Manager

Authoriser:

Jeanette Wikaira - Manahautū (General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy)

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Draft Submission Letter - Reducing Pokies Harm

97

b

Reducing Pokies Harm Public Discussion Document

99

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The decision to submit enables action on behalf of communities and promotes the social and economic wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

 

Contributes

Detracts

Not applicable

Social Wellbeing Strategy

Economic Development Strategy

Environment Strategy

Arts and Culture Strategy

3 Waters Strategy

Spatial Plan

Integrated Transport Strategy

Parks and Recreation Strategy

Other strategic projects/policies/plans

This submission is in alignment with the Social Wellbeing Strategy’s strategic directions of vibrant and cohesive communities and safe and healthy people. The Submission is also in alignment with DCC’s Gambling and TAB Venue Policy.

Māori Impact Statement

Organisations representing Māori were part of the community engagement to develop the Gambling and TAB Venue Policy. Harm from problem gambling disproportionately impacts Māori. Results from the 2018 Health and Lifestyles Survey showed that 38% of Māori pokie players experienced gambling harm, whereas 12% of non-Māori pokie players experienced gambling harm.   By reducing harm from problem gambling, the Crown are more effectively meeting their obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi guarantees Māori authority over their taonga, including their hauora (health).

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Note if there are no implications for these documents

Financial considerations

There are no financial considerations.

Significance

This decision has been assessed as low under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There was no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

The Corporate Policy Team led the development of the submission and this cover report and engaged with the Alcohol, Drug and Gambling Advisor during this process.  

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known Conflicts of Interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

 

 


Council

27 April 2022

 

[Submission (letter) Reducing Pokies Harm April 2022]

 

Gambling Policy Team

Department of Internal Affairs

PO Box 805

WELLINGTON 6140

 

By email: pokiesconsultation@dia.govt.nz

 

Tēnā koutou

 

DCC SUBMISSION ON REDUCING POKIES HARM

 

Introduction

 

1.    The Dunedin City Council (DCC) welcomes the opportunity to submit feedback to the Gambling Policy Team at the Department of Internal Affairs on reducing pokies harm.

 

Submission

 

2.    The DCC supports reducing pokies harm and would like this consultation to increase safety for people who gamble on pokie machines, through regulatory changes focused on harm prevention and minimisation. This aligns with the purposes of the Gambling Act 2003, specifically to:

·    control the growth of gambling

·    prevent and minimise harm from gambling, including problem gambling

·    facilitate responsible gambling

·    ensure that money from gambling benefits the community and to

·    facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provisions of gambling

 

3.    The DCC supports the following proposals in the Reducing Pokies Harm Public Discussion Document if they can contribute to the reduction of harm from problem gambling:

·    education and training of license holders, venue operators, and staff

·    changes to the regulations governing and technical specifications of the features of pokie machines

·    introducing stronger compliance requirements and infringement measures for breaches of the Gambling Act 2003

 

 

4.    In making this submission, the DCC notes its 2021 review of its Gambling and TAB Venue Policy.  This Policy states that the DCC will not grant consent for the establishment of any new Class 4 gambling venues, or for an increase in numbers of electronic gaming machines within these venues.

 

5.    As part of the Gambling and TAB Venue Policy review, the DCC resolved to lobby for a more sustainable model of funding for community organisations to replace the reliance on gambling proceeds. While this is the Council’s preference, it supports changes                   that will prevent and minimise harm through pokie machine use, as outlined in this submission.

 

6.    Key themes from submitters to the DCC’s Gambling and TAB Venue Policy review were                  concern at gambling related harm in the community and the reliance of community                        organisations on the proceeds of gambling, particularly sports groups.

 

7.    The proposed changes offer increased consistency and alignment with the purposes of                          the Gambling Act 2003 and aligns with the strategic direction for healthy                                          and safe people set out in the DCC Social Wellbeing Strategy 2013-2023.

 

8.    DCC sees reducing pokies harm as an important avenue to better improve outcomes for Māori. Māori are disproportionately impacted by gambling harm. The inequity that Māori experience currently should be a focus of the government’s efforts to reduce the harm posed by gambling. By reducing harm from problem gambling, the Crown are more effectively meeting their obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi guarantees Māori authority over their taonga, including their hauora (health).

 

Conclusion

 

9.    The DCC is pleased to submit in overall support of reducing pokies harm.

 

 

 

Ngā mihi,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aaron Hawkins

Mayor of Dunedin

 


Council

27 April 2022

 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


Council

27 April 2022

 

 

Proposed Event Road Closures for May 2022

Department: Transport

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The DCC has received temporary road closure applications for the following events:

a)         Graduation Parades

b)        Hyde Street Party 2022

2          This report recommends that the Council approves the temporary closure of the roads concerned.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Resolves to close the roads detailed below, pursuant to Section 319, Section 342, and Schedule 10 clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Graduation Parades

Saturday 7, Saturday 14, and Saturday 21 May 2022, parades beginning 11:30am.

 

10:00am until 1:00pm

Great King Street between Frederick Street and Albany Street.

 

11:15am until 12:15pm:

Frederick Street between Great King Street and George Street.

George Street between Frederick Street and St Andrew Street.

St Andrew Street between George Street and Filleul Street.

Filleul Street between St Andrew Street and Moray Place.

Moray Place between George Street and Filleul Street.

 

Approximately 10:45am until parade has cleared.

Moray Place between Upper Stuart Street and Filleul Street.

 

Hyde Street 2022

 

Albany Street, between Leith Street and Clyde Street, from 5.00am to 8.30pm on Saturday 28 May 2022.

 

Hyde Street, between Albany Street and Frederick Street, will be closed from 5.30am Friday 27 May to approximately 12 noon Sunday 29 May 2022.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

3          Events and festivals contribute vibrancy and uniqueness to Dunedin, creating economic opportunities for the city and reflecting and enhancing social, recreational, environmental, and cultural well-being. Strategies and plans reflect the contribution events make to the city’s vision of being one of the world’s great small cities including the Social Well-being Strategy, the Economic Development Strategy, Ara Toi Ōtepoti, Parks and Recreation Strategy, and the Festival and Events Plan 2018-2023. 

4          The area proposed to be used for these events is legal road and can therefore be temporarily closed to normal traffic if the statutory temporary road closure procedures are followed. These procedures are set out in Section 319 of the LGA 1974 which gives Council the power to stop or close any road or part of a road in the manner and upon the conditions set out in section 342 and Schedule 10 of the LGA 1974.  Schedule 10 is included as attachment A. These conditions include the following:

·        Consultation with Waka Kotahi (New Zealand Transport Agency) and the Police.

·        Public notice must be given of the intention to consider closing any road or part of a road, and notice given of the decision to close the road.

·        When closing under Schedule 10 section 11(e), the road cannot be closed more than 31 days in the aggregate in any one year.

·        Being satisfied that traffic is not likely to be unreasonably impeded.

5          Where the proposed temporary road stopping relates to public functions, the decision to close a road cannot be delegated to Council staff; a resolution of Council is required.

DISCUSSION

Consultation and Notification

6          The Police and Waka Kotahi have no objections to the proposed road closures.

7          On Saturday 26 March 2022 and Thursday 14 April 2022, the Otago Daily Times advertised the proposed temporary road closures (Attachment B and C).

8          An opportunity was provided to give feedback on the proposal by emailing tmp@dcc.govt.nz by a deadline of Saturday 2 April 2022 for the Grad Parades and 19 April 2022 for the Hyde Street Event.  No objections were received. 

9          Council is required to give public notice of its decision. This notice will be published after this meeting and prior to the event, if approved.

10        The event organisers for the events contacted those considered affected prior to submitting their application, and no objections were received.  

11        The 31-day limit mentioned in paragraph 4 will not be exceeded by the approval of the proposed temporary road closures.

 

Traffic Impacts 

12        The events have been held in prior years without causing unreasonable delays to the travelling public. There is a change in the parade route due to the Central City Upgrade works, however it is anticipated that any delays to the public will be short duration. Emergency Services and Public transport services will be managed through the temporary traffic management process.

13        The temporary traffic management plan process will ensure that other issues such as temporary relocation of certain parking (e.g. taxi, mobility and AVO) are addressed.

OPTIONS

14        Recommendations in this report cannot be amended without first carrying out further consultation with affected parties, Waka Kotahi, the Police, and verifying that traffic impacts are acceptable.

Option One – Recommended Option

 

15        That the Council closes the sections of roads as detailed in the recommendation.

Advantages

·        The roads will be able to be closed and the events will be able to proceed.

·        The closure will enable the benefits (economic, social, and cultural) associated with events held in Dunedin.

Disadvantages

·        There will be temporary loss of vehicular access through the closed areas.  However, there are detours available, and safety can be assured using temporary traffic management.

Option Two – Status Quo

16        That the Council decides not to close the roads in question.

Advantages

·        There would be no detour required for travelling public, and the road would be able to be used as normal.

Disadvantages

·        The events would not be able to go ahead, and the benefits of the events would be lost.

NEXT STEPS

17        Should the resolution be made to temporarily close the roads, Council staff will proceed to accept the temporary traffic management plan and notify the public of the closures.

 

Signatories

Author:

Michael Tannock - Transport Network Team Leader

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Local Government Act 1974 Schedule 10

124

b

ODT Noticeboard 26 March 2022

127

c

ODT Notices 14 April 2022

128

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social and economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

 

Contributes

Detracts

Not applicable

Social Wellbeing Strategy

Economic Development Strategy

Environment Strategy

Arts and Culture Strategy

3 Waters Strategy

Spatial Plan

Integrated Transport Strategy

Parks and Recreation Strategy

Other strategic projects/policies/plans

Events contribute to the Strategic Framework.

Events contribute to the Economic Development Strategy, the Social Wellbeing Strategy.

There is a Festival and Events Plan 2018-2023.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Māori.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.  The cost of the proposed road closures will be met within existing budgets.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been external engagement as required by the LGA 1974, with the Police and Waka Kotahi. Affected parties were notified and provided a time period for feedback.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with DCC Events, In-House Legal, and Transport.  There is support for the events to proceed.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks should the recommended resolution be made.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

 

 


Council

27 April 2022

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 April 2022

 

PDF Creator


Council

27 April 2022

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

              


Council

27 April 2022

 

Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

 

That the Council excludes the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting (pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987) namely:

 

General subject of the matter to be considered

 

Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

 

Reason for Confidentiality

C1  Confirmation of  the Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting - 22 February 2022 - Public Excluded

S6(a)

The making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial.

 

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

 

S7(2)(g)

The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

 

S7(2)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

 

.

 

C2  Confidential Council Actions from Resolutions at Council Meetings

S6(a)

The making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 6.

 

C3  Confidential Council Forward Work Programme

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

C4  Director Vacancy - Dunedin City Holdings Limited

S7(2)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

This report is confidential because the appointment of director is made public once the applicant has been notified of the decision..

C5  Potential Property Purchase

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act, or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as shown above after each item.



[1] Ministry for Environment (2020) ‘Recommendations for Standardisation of Kerbside Collections in Aotearoa’, URL: https://environment.govt.nz/publications/recommendations-for-standardisation-of-kerbside-collections-in-aotearoa.

[2] Sunshine Yates Consulting (2020) ‘Rethinking Rubbish and Recycling in Dunedin’.

[3] Keep New Zealand Beautiful (2019) ‘National Litter Audit’.

[4] Ministry for Environment (2020) ‘Recommendations for Standardisation of Kerbside Collections in Aotearoa’, URL: https://environment.govt.nz/publications/recommendations-for-standardisation-of-kerbside-collections-in-aotearoa.