The long-awaited review of the state’s controversial waste levy – promised by the Coalition during its election campaign – is finally under way.
Hunter people will be particularly keen to see the levy overhauled and reformed, since to date it has appeared to be little more than another government tax designed to transfer money to Sydney.
In 2010-2011 Lower Hunter councils handed over almost $30million in waste levies to the government in Sydney. Only about $6million – at best – was returned to the region to improve the efficiency of waste disposal programs.
If that was the only complaint then the levy might be no worse than other imposts, like the levy on vehicle registrations across the whole state that pays for road improvements in Sydney and the hefty dividends paid by Hunter Water customers into state coffers every year.
But the waste levy is worse than these because of its perverse incentives that tend to deliver the opposite of the results the levy was designed to produce.
Some councils have been forced by government rule changes to mothball expensive recycling equipment that should have reduced waste in landfills. Others are penalised because stockpiled road-base is defined as waste and subject to payments. Councils even pay levies on the material they must use to cover rubbish at their tips.
The rising expense of legally disposing of waste has driven many people to simply dump rubbish in the bush.
The levy should not be completely scrapped. The idea of making dumping expensive to encourage recycling is sound. But one size doesn’t fit all and what works in the city is often a failure in the regions. And regional equity needs to be applied to the distribution of levy funds so that much more of the money raised in a particular area is used to improve waste management in that area.
oal and climate
‘‘CLEAN coal’’ was, just a few years ago, the bold flagship concept promoted by mining companies anxious to demonstrate their commitment to minimising their impact on the world’s climate.
But as clean coal projects have folded, one by one, those with an interest in the environment have begun to ask what alternatives the miners might have in mind.
Indeed, in a recent Land and Environment Court hearing, environmentalists succeeded in persuading a judge that the Ulan mine ought to pay to offset its greenhouse gas emissions.
The mining company, Xstrata, is appealing against the decision and the Australian Coal Association has backed its member, asserting that the emissions will be covered by the proposed federal carbon tax. But there isn’t yet a carbon tax and there is no guarantee there will ever be one. In the meantime, greenhouse gas emissions of one sort or another remain one of the great under-addressed issues of coalmining.
The mining companies declare they are as concerned as anybody about climate change. They shouldn’t be surprised then, that others are asking them to put some of their money where their mouths are.
Email a friend