Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 12 to 15, “Amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to take a quick call on this topic. This is something that the Greens are quite passionate about around the Waste Minimisation Act. My question is around whether there are any safeguards that would prevent the fees that are enabled to be collected by this legislation from being spent outside of product stewardship? We do know that there have already been changes to the Waste Minimisation Act that have dehypothecated it. So, earlier last year, the Government changed it so that the levies collected under the Waste Minimisation Act could be spent on not just waste minimisation things but on remediating landfills, for example. Is there anything in this legislation which could potentially stop or prevent that? That would be obviously quite concerning to us.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 2 amends the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to improve how the product stewardship fees are collected for certain goods. I have a few questions for the Minister. Which product stewardship schemes does she anticipate that the Customs Service’s fee for collection will do once this bill is passed—for example, is she considering, say, having the tyre-recycling fee under the Tyrewise ready to be collected at the border by Customs, and, if she is, does she have a timeline for that?

The second question: how will she ensure that Customs, in collecting these fees, improves the compliance rates and reduces the administrative costs, and does the Minister have estimates of increased collection, in dollars or percentages, due to the change that this bill has?

My last question is: will all the fees collected by Customs under this part of the bill be transferred to the appropriate environmental fund in full—in other words, can the public be assured that the levies she is collecting are ring-fenced for environmental purposes, and not mingled with other general revenue?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m actually quite surprised that this is in any piece of legislation from this Government, because I thought they’d just about get rid of every stewardship fee. But anyway, it’s nice to see it here—nice to see it here. The one issue raised by my colleague Hon Jenny Salesa is the one around tyres, of course. We know that is a nightmare, and there has been a fee put on. The proposal, of course, is to make it more efficient and bring it under Customs. I have to say, I acknowledge Customs staff are passionate people who do an incredible job to protect our country from illicit drugs and things that are unwanted, and now they’ll have to be responsible for tyres that we do want—well, but we want to deal with them properly. This does bring into question the enthusiasm from Customs for this.

There may be other stewardship fees on things like unwanted plastic containers, where there is a real cost of recycling. There should be a fee on it, to ensure that anyone who produces it is then responsible for recycling. The next one would be lithium batteries, I’d suggest. This is a new and emerging area.

I guess the question to the Minister of Customs is: can she give us an assurance that, actually, the Government is committed to product stewardship fees? We assume that she is, but it’d be nice to hear that. What new stewardship fees are being proposed? Indeed, as I say, the evolution of our economy and technology means that there will be, if the principles of product stewardship fees are continued. Maybe the Minister can clarify that: the principles of user-pays around recycling or dealing with some products. We still have a lot of chemicals coming into our system that, if not dealt with properly, can become quite a cost, often to councils. This is proposing that for efficiency, Customs will collect that.

Indeed, the challenge and the responsibility will only get larger, I’d suggest—well, it probably will under responsible Government; if the coalition is to be responsible in this area, then that will increase. The Minister should, then, ensure that the cost of this within the Customs system will be covered, not just the issue of dealing with the product itself or the waste minimisation—which I think is an objective of each and every one of us. A couple of questions there for the Minister that I’d appreciate a comment on. Thank you.

Just first, the assurance that the fees collected have to be used for the purpose that was collected—so this is a product stewardship fee; it has to be used for that function.

In terms of the amounts, there is commercial sensitivity in the dollar amounts and it would vary on a case by case basis. Again, just to clarify: this is just setting up a mechanism under which Customs could collect the fees. It’s not an action driven by Customs around waste management or waste product stewardship. It’s just a mechanism under which Customs could now—there was a temporary arrangement set up in about March last year to allow Customs to assist with the collection of levies as part of the border processing of these goods. This is about tidying this up.

Yes: absolutely committed to future product stewardship. That’s why we think it should be in this legislation without defining—it’s just about setting up the mechanism, because, logically, it is an opportunity for Customs because we see the goods coming in and out. It would logically be an easier process. Customs does collect fees on behalf of other agencies.

Thank you, very much, Madam Chair. I understand that in 2020 when we were—of course we were in Government then, there were six priority products—

Tim van de Molen: Dark days.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The good old days, yeah. There were six—

Andy Foster: You even caused the pandemic.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank God we were in charge. There are tens of thousands of New Zealanders who are alive now because we were in charge.

Can I come back, Madam Chair—I never deviate.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You certainly can. You certainly can—it’s clear the debate’s not over.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: “Please, keep it tight.”—yes, keep it tight. There were six priority products to be subject to product stewardship schemes, and I acknowledge the Government brought one in for tyres. Maybe, the Minister could give us an indication of whether the other five products are still in the process and whether, because of the new, efficient system that will be now put in place under Customs, whether that will be fast tracked into this new scheme, so there’d be five other products. Maybe, the Minister can give us an indication on that.

The information I’ve received in terms of schemes that are in the pipeline includes tyres, electronics, and farm plastics. Those are some of the indications of the things in the pipeline. Just in terms of that cost, at the moment, if Customs was chosen to collect a product stewardship fee, it would be regulatorily efficient to use an existing revenue-collection system. That would reduce the cost, if it was using an existing collection system. The Government has decided that that would reduce compliance costs, if we were using an existing framework of collection fees, so that’s part of it in terms of what’s in the pipeline. Again, this isn’t Customs work; it’s just that we’re just setting it up, but what I’m informed of is that farm plastics, electronics, and tyres are in the pipeline.

The question is—

Hon Member: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Does the member want to take a call? I was beginning a vote.

Hon Member: That’s all right, sorry.

Part 2 agreed to.

Members, the time has come to suspend the House for the dinner break. Just remember that we are on a shortened dinner break tonight due to urgency. When we come back, we will be on to Part 3 of this bill.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Part 3 Amendments to the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985