New Zealand NZ Government confirms New Waste Management Bill Including EPR Regulations

New Zealand EPR Circular Economy Wastes (Products) Container/Packaging Batteries Household Appliances IT Equipments Office Equipments Plastics
6 January 2026  AOKI Kenji  AOKI Kenji (EnviX, Ltd.)
NZ Government confirms New Waste Management Bill Including EPR Regulations

In a news article dated December 16, 2025, the Ministry for the Environment reported that the Government has confirmed a new bill for waste management in New Zealand. This bill replaces the current Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the Litter Act 1979, aiming to reduce and manage waste more efficiently. Among the specific proposals, the introduction of an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework is a key point for businesses. A public consultation on the bill received 267 submissions, reflecting various reactions. The government plans to pass the legislation before the 2026 general election.

 

Public consultation on the bill was conducted from April 22 to June 1, 2025, drawing a total of 267 submissions from New Zealand companies, industry groups, local governments, and iwi and hapu. The consultation document outlined five primary proposals, with feedback including the following points:

1. Developing an EPR framework to ensure producers remain responsible for products after consumer use

  • Most submitters (95%) supported the EPR framework. Some suggested improvements to processes for product prioritization, system design, financial management, performance monitoring, and enforcement, while others proposed detailed designs for specific products or materials.
  • Regarding the removal of government accreditation for Voluntary Product Stewardship (VPS) schemes, most submitters (69%) supported the proposal. This was because these schemes were perceived as failing to achieve expected outcomes and the current accreditation process was seen as ineffective.
    Conversely, some submitters (21%) viewed VPS schemes as an important pathway toward priority product stewardship. Concerns were raised that removing government accreditation could increase greenwashing risks and hinder industry growth or innovation.

2. Changing the allocation method of waste levies to local governments and clarifying the use of those funds

Submitters primarily supported the following proposals:

  • Changing the waste levy allocation to a combination of a base flat rate (20%) and a population-based calculation (80%).
  • Removing the blanket waste levy exemption for waste-to-energy facilities.
  • Clarifying the timing of levies on waste disposed of at waste management facilities.
  • Introducing new tools to improve inventory management.

Furthermore, most submitters (95%) stated that waste levies should be used for activities that promote or achieve waste reduction in accordance with local government Waste Management and Minimisation Plans. Additionally, 61% opposed activities that reduce environmental harm or increase environmental benefits in the scope of the waste levy.

3. Clarifying roles and responsibilities of central government, local government, and the waste industry

  • Most submitters supported the proposals regarding the roles and responsibilities of the Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand Customs Service, and local governments, and agreed with data sharing between agencies.
  • Some submitters expressed concern regarding increased financial uncertainty for local governments, which could potentially undermine regional waste reduction efforts.

4. Improving tools for compliance, monitoring, and enforcement

  • Most submitters (93%) supported strengthening the authority for regulators to receive and share data. Reasons included increased transparency, support for evidence-based decision-making, and enhanced effectiveness of compliance, enforcement, and policy.
  • Most submitters (87%) supported introducing a graduated approach to compliance tools and sanctions. This was supported because it allows for penalties proportional to the severity of the violation and ensures consistency across regions.
    However, 11% reserved judgment, pointing out that minor penalties like fines might not deter serious violations and that misclassifying violations into lower tiers could reduce accountability.

5. Enabling efficient and effective measures to manage illegal dumping and other improper waste

Between 86% and 96% of respondents agreed with all proposals in this section.

  • 66% supported the proposal to limit the definition of public authority, while others reserved judgment.
  • Regarding the proposal not to assign a statutory role for promoting litter control to any specific agency or organization, 12% of respondents opposed it, citing concerns about increased burdens on local governments.
  • The proposal to change the obligation for public authorities to provide litter bins was supported by 72% and opposed by 19%. Opponents expressed concern that this is a core responsibility of local government and that removing bins could lead to increased littering.

 

While specific products subject to the EPR system were not named during this public consultation, the following six product categories are currently designated as priority products for product stewardship under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008:

  • plastic packaging
  • tyres
  • electrical and electronic products (e-waste including large batteries)
  • agrichemicals and their containers
  • refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases
  • farm plastics

 

 

Related Link

Author / Responsibility

AOKI Kenji

Senior Consultant, EnviX Ltd.
General Director, E&H Consulting Co., Ltd.

Business Performance

Expertise in EHS (environment, health and safety) consulting in ASEAN region.
- Environmental regulations updating
- Chemical regulations consulting

Background

MSc in Earth Science, The University of Tokyo

AOKI Kenji