NSW Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, Carmel Tebbutt’s office could not confirm if she would meet with Wingecarribee Council to discuss the landfill levy.
Over 12 years the council has forked out $3.25 million in landfill levies but hasn’t got much back in return.
The News reported Council’s frustrations on April 8 after it was revealed the levy would increase $10 per annum from $52.40 per tonne over the next three years.
Council wrote to the minister to arrange a meeting with Mayor Duncan Gair after two previous attempts by former Councils were rejected.
Council said its cost for disposing of inert or mixed building waste will go up 22 per cent to $196 per tonne.
A spokesman for the minister said the government re-invested its landfill war chest back into councils.
“The Minister and the Department have been in touch
with a number of councils and the Local Government and Shires Association regarding the arrangements for the levy and the City and Country Environment Restoration Program,” he said.
“A memorandum of understanding has been entered into with the Association, which will provide councils with Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payments of more than $256 million over the next seven years.”
The rate rise was designed as a disincentive.
“The Department of Environment and Climate Change
identified that a more substantial levy rate was needed to divert commercial waste away from landfill and clearly discourage landfill as a disposal option for household waste,” the spokesman said.
The ministry said NSW Councils paid $60 million in landfill levies in 2007/08 and almost $42 million was returned to the councils through a City and Country Environmental
Restoration Program.
The program includes:
■ More than $12 million to local Councils for waste performance improvement payments;
■ $21.5 million to councils for local Urban Sustainability Projects;
■ $3.75 million for local community and local government
environment grants for restorations and community education;
■ More than $2 million to local government regional waste groups and anti-dumping squads.
■ $1.6 million for household chemical clean-ups conducted with councils.
Moss Vale resource recovery centre manager Miles Lochhead disagreed that most of the money was available to councils.
“We support the levy increases as a disincentive to landfill but as the collected monies rise in proportion
to the levy increases, so should the return to the waste industry - not Treasury,” he said.
“I question the ‘almost $42 million returned to councils
through the City and Country Environmental Restoration
Program’. Not all of this money benefits councils. How much actually gets to councils and how much to community groups?”
Mr Lochhead said Wingecarribee was one of a few regional councils that pay most of the levy.
“Councils that run waste facilities also pay a substantial
portion of the total levy,” he said.
“These facilities, along with commercially operated site, can only access a small fraction of the levy fund via grants, which require substantial resources to prepare
bids.”
Wingecarribee’ s waste manager agreed the government was doing more for the environment.
“I cannot deny that there is more money available now for environmental projects which is a great thing,” he said.
“However, environmental projects can range from creek
restoration to wind generation, many of which do not relate to waste facilities that collect the levy (tax) on behalf of the Government.”
Wingecarribee Council was doing its bit to reach recycling
targets.
“There is scant reward for Councils, such as Wingecarribee, that have achieved State Government targets for waste reduction and recycling (we reached the 2014 target two years ago),” Mr Lochhead said.
“In local government, there are substantial incentives to avoid landfill, not to mention the overall environmental rewards, but few [financial] benefits for reaching targets ahead of schedule.”
Better marketing was the key to keeping waste rates down.
“The industry needs assistance with markets and infrastructure to avoid having to charge exorbitant fees at the gate,” Mr Lochhead said.
“While it’s true higher gate charges for mixed waste encourages customers to sort their wastes (and therefore avoid landfill levies), the cost of sorting and marketing recovered materials is high.
“These recovered materials have to compete with virgin materials such as road base and wood chip and consumers will always lean toward a ‘new’ product especially if they can save money,” he said.
Email a friend