Fears Tasmanian waste tax will cause further environmental problems | Avocado
news, local news,
There are fears that a new waste tax, if implemented, could be a precursor of illegal landfill and storage activities. The House of Assembly this week approved a new waste tax to encourage recycling, with Labor opposing the bill, with the party seeing it as a new tax and a broken government campaign pledge. The initial charge of $ 20 per tonne for waste disposed will take effect next year, increasing to $ 40 per tonne two years later and $ 60 per tonne two years later. IN OTHER NEWS The Tasmanian Farmers and Ranchers Association, in its submission to the bill, said the tax would lead to a substantial increase in illegal dumping and burning. Tasmanian Minerals and Energy Council chief executive Ray Mostogl said illegal dumping of waste was already widespread in Tasmania. “Mine sites, mineral processors and manufacturing companies are generally large landowners and often located far from populated or busy areas and are therefore conducive to illegal dumping,†he said. “The bill was to ensure that companies that invariably dispose of this illegal waste at their own expense are not further burdened by having to pay a tax.†Penalize companies for the cost of disposing of someone’s waste another would be seen as a perverse outcome. “Environment Minister Roger Jaensch (pictured) said on Thursday that the government had only received two formal bids against the waste tax out of 31 bids. He said the legislation had been amended to reflect some of the concerns raised in those submissions. from this year’s royalty collection date to July 1 of next year. The original November 1 collection date was raised in several submissions from the boards that have argued that there was not enough time to facilitate the changes needed to apply the levy to council operations and collect e of curbside waste They argued that the start date did not match budget cycles and that the additional cost of the tax should be absorbed by current budgets. The bill will be debated in the upper house later this month. What do you think? Send us a letter to the editor:
/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/7GTjPNqfZtZ9DDgM7sVkPJ/a44e5b55-efc4-4d53-8796-284548756ce0.PNG/r17_0_867_480_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg
There are fears that a new waste tax, if implemented, could be a precursor of illegal landfill and storage activities.
The House of Assembly this week approved a new waste tax to encourage recycling, with Labor opposing the bill, with the party seeing it as a new tax and a broken government campaign pledge.
The initial charge of $ 20 per tonne for waste disposed will take effect next year, increasing to $ 40 per tonne two years later and $ 60 per tonne two years later.
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, in its submission to the bill, said the tax would lead to a substantial increase in illegal dumping and burning.
Tasmanian Minerals and Energy Council chief executive Ray Mostogl said illegal dumping of waste was already widespread in Tasmania.
“Mine sites, mineral processors and manufacturing companies are generally large landowners and often located far from populated or busy areas and therefore fall prey to illegal dumping,†he said. “The bill was to ensure that companies that invariably dispose of this illegal waste at their own expense are not further burdened by the obligation to pay a royalty.
“Penalizing companies for the cost of disposing of someone else’s waste would be seen as a perverse outcome.”
Environment Minister Roger Jaensch (pictured) said on Thursday that there had been only two formal bids received by the government against the waste tax out of 31 bids.
He said the legislation had been amended to reflect some of the concerns raised in those submissions.
This included a change in the levy collection date from this year to July 1 of next year.
The initial collection date of November 1 was raised in several council submissions that argued that there was not enough time to facilitate the changes needed to apply the charge to council operations and waste collection. at the edge of the street.
They argued that the start date did not match budget cycles and that the additional cost of the tax should be absorbed by current budgets.
The bill will be debated in the upper house later this month.
What do you think? Send us a letter to the editor:
Comments are closed.