Have Your Say

Whangārei plastic burning hearing against Warren Sinclair raises questions over NZ recycling realityA judge has questioned what meaningful difference there is between burning plastic in a pyrolysis unit and sending it to landfill, as he heard allegations against a man running a plastic-burning plant without the required consent.
Environment Court Judge Jeff Smith questioned where New Zealand’s recycled plastic goes, suggesting most of it “quite probably” ends up in landfill, releasing toxins for centuries, the very outcome Warren Sinclair says he is trying to avoid.
“What’s the difference?” the judge asked during the recent hearing into Sinclair’s latest venture, Black2Green.
The Northland Regional Council (NRC) served four abatement notices on Sinclair late last year after an off-duty enforcement officer noticed discharge coming from his Kioreroa Rd industrial property in Whangārei.
The plant was discharging an unknown substance into the air from a pyrolysis unit that burns plastic waste and converts it into substances such as diesel and gas.
Pyrolysis heats material to a high temperature, in the absence of oxygen, which then breaks down into substances such as gases, oils or charcoal.
Sinclair failed to comply with the abatement notices, forcing the case to the Environment Court with the NRC.
Judge Smith said his understanding was that the plant was processing a combustible liquid, the exact nature of which remained unclear, and the substance was then used to fire another unit, triggering the next ignition cycle.

Sinclair’s lawyer, James Gardner-Hopkins, said the plant had two burners, one running on diesel and the other an enclosed system running off its own regenerated fuel.

“The process reduces liquid fuel and gas and some carbon. The gas that comes out is almost identical to LPG or LNG therefore, the use of that gas to continue the heating process makes the process mostly self-sustainable,” Sinclair told the court.
He said the unit was from a Chinese manufacturer and submitted the instruction guide for use as evidence.
Sinclair also submitted his own diagram to the court of how he put the plant together.
Lawyer for the NRC, Anna McConachy, asked Sinclair whether he had carried out any air quality testing or independent testing.

“No, we have not,” he responded.
Sinclair said he used test results from similar plants around the world and said it was “known science, it’s not something that’s brand new”.
He acknowledged he had not put any of that evidence before the court.
McConachy asked Sinclair whether he was an air quality expert or an engineer, to which he responded, “I am not”.
She also asked him whether he had any information from the manufacturer about what comes out of the system once it is cooled and opened.

“No, I don’t believe anyone’s ever asked me that question,” he responded.
Sinclair told the court that although he had consent from the Whangārei District Council to use graphite in burning tyres, he did not apply to the regional council for the plastic-burning operation.
“We asked a planner for a resource consent and their opinion was there was none required,” Sinclair said.

Resource management commissioner Lou Wickham said their primary concern was the combustion of pyrolysis gas, which requires a consent.
“If it doesn’t get burned off, it raises questions of what happens to it? He said he would bottle it and sell it and that would require a different plant that’s not currently there,” Wickham said.
“A bottling process is entirely different.”
Wickham said the plant was discharging an unknown waste stream horizontally into a vegetated hillside, rather than vertically, as is standard.
“The reason we put them straight up to air is so we get dispersion, so by the time it comes down, it’s much more dilute. Putting it straight out sideways into a hill is not best practice,” Wickham said.

‘Landfill doesn’t solve the problem’
Sinclair had told the court that the plant was producing bio-gas, to which Wickham laughed.
“Bio-gas is produced by biological matter, food waste, plants, trees and sewerage. It’s not plastic or e-waste, so no, I don’t agree with Mr Sinclair.”

Wickham said no testing had been done by the NRC and this would be something that needed to be done if a consent was applied for.
Judge Smith pointed out Northland permitted activities that produced toxic byproducts that other regions had already clamped down on, including coal, diesel and other combustion‑based discharges.
“Northland has a whole series of permitted activities producing toxic byproducts – coal, fire plants, diesel. I’ve got to suggest coal and oil have contaminants,” he said.
The court heard Sinclair’s plant could burn about 45 cubic metres of plastic a day, diverting it from landfill.
The judge pushed back on the council’s alternative, which was landfill.
“Putting them in a landfill doesn’t solve the problem. It does heat, and that I assume contains some of the same things, a more diverse range than yours; nevertheless it doesn’t disappear,” the judge told to the council.
“It’s still in the environment, that has to be dealt with or they would just sit and deteriorate over the next few hundred years.
“I’ve got to say, the court understands what you’re trying to achieve and there are [plants] like this around the world,” the judge said to Sinclair.

Judge Smith then spoke with Wickham about the mystery of New Zealand’s recycled plastics.
“We have our plastic waste every year and I am yet to find out where it goes apart from landfills,” Judge Smith said.

“Where does it go? I certainly don’t believe it’s recycled in any way. How are they dealt with?
“I suggest all of it goes to landfill.”
“Yes, quite probably,” Wickham conceded.
Judge Smith then drew a direct comparison between Sinclair’s proposed emissions and what already escapes from landfills.
“What is the difference?” he asked.
The council maintained that Sinclair still required a resource consent.
Northland’s new regional plan bans the burning of plastics, rubber and treated timber but allows most other gas discharges provided they don’t create an “offensive or objectionable” effect beyond the boundary.
Judge Smith has reserved his decision.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/whangarei-plastic-burning-hearing-against-warren-sinclair-raises-questions-over-nz-recycling-reality/D4E2NQRQ5FETXKU6BV7P2JR6VY/

Interesting, especially given the ban on burning tyres because CO2, and that Golden Bay is burning up thousands of tyres a year nowadays, making cement.

The calorific value in tyres is very high, and at a decent temperature they burn really well and are good for burning green greenery.No reason to suppose that plastic isn’t the same. Should be put to work heating hospitals and such places.

For those who are interested but won’t read the Herald.

The Supreme Court: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly – Part 1; The Good and Mr TamihereIn the first of a two-part series on the Supreme Court, Lady Deborah Chambers, KC, unpacks the David Tamihere case.+

The New Zealand Supreme Court was created in 2004 to take over from the Privy Council in London as our final court of appeal. It was meant to be more in touch with our society and our law. It has brought real benefits, but it has also attracted serious criticism. Over the next two columns, I will look at both.
With apologies to Clint Eastwood, we begin with the good.
One of the clearest recent examples of the New Zealand Supreme Court at its very best is its unanimous decision in Tamihere v R [2026] NZSC 22, delivered on March 31, 2026. Justice Ellen France gave the reasons for the court no doubt with input from the other judges. The judgment is a model of clarity and accessibility. What stands out is how the court tells the story. It sets out the facts of the original trial and the emergence of new evidence over the years with precision and without sensationalism in a way that allows readers to follow what happened: the 1989 disappearance of Swedish tourists Sven Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen on the Coromandel Peninsula; the 1990 High Court trial that relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including identification by two trampers and the evidence of a jailhouse informant, Roberto Conchie Harris; Harris’ later conviction for perjury on key parts of his evidence; the discovery of Höglin’s body years later; and the radical change in the Crown’s theory of the case that followed.
The Supreme Court explained why the original trial had been fundamentally unfair and why the Court of Appeal should not have upheld the convictions anyway, despite those serious problems with the trial. It also addressed the constitutional importance of the jury’s role when the Crown case has been substantially recast. The result was not only legally rigorous but publicly intelligible. Readers can understand why convictions entered more than 35 years earlier had to be quashed and a retrial ordered. It shows that the system is capable of recognising and correcting serious errors, even many years later. That public explanation is itself an important part of maintaining confidence in our justice system.

This decision illustrates several of the court’s real strengths. First, it shows the value of a final appellate court that is physically and culturally close to New Zealand. Before 2004, most people in Tamihere’s position, having already lost in the Court of Appeal, would have had no realistic further recourse. The Privy Council heard a tiny number of New Zealand criminal appeals and was notoriously cautious about interfering with convictions. The Supreme Court gave Tamihere a genuine last opportunity to have serious questions about the fairness of his trial examined thoroughly at the highest level inside New Zealand. And credit for reaching that result must also go to his criminal defence barristers, whose persistence and hard work over many years deserves real recognition. I bet there were times when they felt exhausted and disheartened.
Second, the court had the time and resources to grapple with a complex, high-stakes matter in a way that busy trial judges and an overworked Court of Appeal cannot always manage. Trial judges must keep complex criminal trials running fairly and efficiently for everyone involved. The Court of Appeal handles a high volume of cases. The Supreme Court can step back, review the entire history of the litigation, the evolution of the evidence, and the constitutional implications of what an appellate court should and should not do. That depth of consideration is one of its greatest strengths.
The Tamihere judgment is also an example of the court’s willingness to correct decisions of lower courts. Defenders of the Supreme Court point out that it has shown genuine independence by overruling Court of Appeal decisions where it considered them wrong. Far from lacking autonomy, as some once feared, the court has demonstrated that it will apply the law rigorously and without fear or favour or undue deference to judges in lower courts. This helps maintain trust in the fairness of our justice system.

Beyond individual cases, the Supreme Court has brought wider improvements. It hears substantially more final appeals than the Privy Council ever did, dramatically increasing access to justice for New Zealanders. Litigants no longer need the resources or stamina to pursue an appeal to London. They have a domestic final court that is both more accessible and more attuned to New Zealand conditions.
The court has also played an important constitutional and rights-protecting role. Through declarations of inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act, judicial review, and rights-consistent interpretation of statutes, it helps hold the other branches of government to account while operating within the framework of parliamentary sovereignty. Supporters say this promotes accountability, social stability and a modern, inclusive legal system. It engages with systemic issues rather than simply deciding one dispute at a time.

Transparency and public understanding have improved. The court’s website provides judgments, media releases and case summaries that are far more accessible than in the past. A quick google brings Tamihere’s decision to your phone in seconds. Proceedings are routinely livestreamed or recorded. The practice of the court is to publish written submissions, chronologies and outlines of argument for appeal hearings. This is open justice in action. Open practices lead to open justice, which is a principle I find far more convincing than the heavy hand of the Privacy Act, which I suspect has done more harm than good. The court actively encourages public visits, including guided tours and programmes for school groups and students. These initiatives help demystify the highest court.
The bench itself has become more diverse. The Supreme Court has had a stronger female presence than many comparable courts, and appointments have maintained high standards while bringing a wider range of experience and perspectives to the table. A court that better reflects the society it serves is better placed to command broad public confidence.
Taken together, these features show a Supreme Court that has matured into a valuable New Zealand institution. It has improved access to justice, demonstrated independence, contributed to a more modern and inclusive legal system, and made its work more visible and understandable to the public. It is, in short, doing much of what it was established to do.
No institution is perfect and the court has also attracted legitimate criticism. Given its power and influence, we should expect a high level of legal, media and political scrutiny. Arguably, we have not always seen enough.
Next week, in Part 2, we will look at the bad and the ugly: the criticisms that have been levelled at the court’s judgment-writing style and at some of its substantive decisions.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/the-supreme-court-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-part-1-the-good-and-mr-tamihere/premium/HYVTUX7755DZ3O2LXJOCCLU4CM/

For those who want to know what’s in the Herald.