XN000022-1996-07-03 — Page 35

- 13.

At present there are two charging schemes under the WDO one is for the disposal of chemical waste, introduced in March 1995, and the other is for waste disposal at landfills.

Members will recall that the regulation on landfill charging was passed by this Council in June last year and our original proposal was that landfill charges should be paid by a simple mechanism of pre-paid tickets by those who deliver waste to landfills. However, during our further consultation with waste collectors, we were given to understand that a pre-paid ticket system would create serious cashflow problems for waste collectors as they would be required to pay upfront.

To address concerns of the waste collectors, we intend to set up an account billing system to collect landfill charges in arrears. Under this system the account holder could be either the waste producer or the waste collector, and it would also be possible for the landfill operator to run the system, thus simplifying the charging arrangements further, and reducing costs. Such arrangements would require amendments to the WDO, which at present does not allow deferred payment or for charges to be collected other than by public officers. The Bill, therefore, seeks to provide for different methods of charge collection, such as account billing; and to authorise the Director of Environmental Protection to delegate the charge collection work to contractors, such as the waste disposal facility operators.

In order to enable landfill operators to properly collect charges on Government's behalf, we propose that they should be allowed to maintain operational order and security at landfills, and to suspend the provision of landfill services for non-payment of charges and bad debts. As these powers are not provided for in the WDO, we propose to amend it to confer such powers on the Director of Environmental Protection and to allow the delegation of these powers to the contractors as appropriate.

Lastly, we would also like to take this opportunity to repeal section 28 of the WDO in order to meet the requirements of Article 10 of the Bill of Rights. Section 28 of the WDO empowers the Governor in Council to review a decision of the appeal board set up under the Ordinance, where that decision has reversed a decision of the Director of Environmental Protection and the latter considers that exceptional circumstances require the review of the appeal board's decision in the public interest. However, Article 10 of the Bill of Rights provides that, in the determination of his rights and obligations in a suit of law, everyone shall be entitled to, I quote, "a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law." Permitting the Governor in Council to overturn the appeal board's decision appears to contravene this Article. In order to remove this inconsistency, we propose to repeal section 28 of the WDO.