Computers are the first thing you notice on entering Matthew Dwyer's Northeast Valley abode.
There is a stack of them in the hallway.
The wall in one room is dominated by shelves full of computers.
There's a computer on a nearby desk.
In the next room there are several more computers on desks, and computers under desks.
Mr Dwyer's house is full of computers. His wife bumps into them at night.
They are in varying stages of repair but because they are here and not, for example, in the landfill, they stand a good chance of being useful machines again, busily fetching and sorting information.
Mr Dwyer fixes them, replacing bits that are past any usefulness, adding bytes that make them fit for purpose again, then sending them off - for free - to new homes.
''Every time a new Microsoft operating system comes out or new computer hardware comes along, what was new even a few years ago becomes something to be discarded.
"So I get to be given those and give them a new lease of life,'' he said.
Several have gone out through the North East Valley Project, to homes where they now help with homework.
It's a cottage industry, run as a public service from the private residence, and in some ways it is the front line in the battle against a growing tide of e-waste.
According to the Ministry for the Environment, waste electrical and electronic equipment (e-waste) is a ''fast-growing problem in New Zealand'', and indeed ''the world's fastest growing type of waste''.
''Every year about 80,000 tonnes of e-waste is disposed of in New Zealand,'' the ministry records on its website.
''Many of these products contain toxic substances such as lead and mercury.''
Somewhat ironically, this stuff is known as legacy waste.
The Dunedin City Council's new Proposed Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2013 also draws attention to the problem, noting it is ''of particular concern when sent to landfill''.
On top of lead and mercury, it nominates cadmium and brominated plastics as particular concerns.
Phosphors are another e-waste problem, together with barium, exposure to which can lead to brain swelling; beryllium, a carcinogen; highly toxic mercury, arsenic and other nasties.
''The e-waste problem is exacerbated by the planned obsolescence of electronics as producers release their products into the marketplace at an increasing rate,'' the council's proposed plan continues.
DCC waste strategy officer Catherine Irvine has observed the trend.
''Another model phone is coming out six months after the last one, so it is accelerating''.
For all that, the council sees an opportunity: ''E-waste also contains quantities of valuable rare earth metals (which are a rapidly depleting resource), gold, copper and other elements that can be recycled''.
Unfortunately, while up to 95% of e-waste can be recycled, the costs associated with recycling cannot be recovered from the sale of the harvested commodities alone.
So it is not a solution on its own.
What Ms Irvine and the DCC would like to see is product stewardship.
That's when the producer or retailer of a product ''extends its responsibility to include the product's life cycle, from manufacture to end of life''.
Or to put it another way, when you have finished with it, you can return it to where you bought it from, and they take care of it.
The council's proposed plan points out that the Waste Management Act (WMA) makes provision for mandatory product stewardship schemes.
''Where an urgent need has been identified to stem the flow of hazardous or problematic products entering landfill, or to prevent illegal dumping and incorrect disposal, products can be made a priority for mandatory product stewardship under section 9 of the WMA.''
The council believes e-waste is such a case.
To date, there have been no priority products mandated for product stewardship.
Lawrence Zwimpfer (MNZM for services to information technology) knows the arguments well. The contracts director for Computers in Homes and the 2020 Communications Trust has been lobbying for product stewardship for years.
He was also a driving force behind the eDay e-waste collections that ran for several years until 2010, catching up to 800 tonnes of computer e-waste.
They were meant to be a stop-gap measure while the Government put product stewardship in place.
A 2006 report co-written by Mr Zwimpfer, e-Waste in New Zealand: Taking Responsibility For End-Of-Life Computers and TVs, put the case and, at the time, he was confident it was just around the corner.
''Here we are, 2013, and I am afraid to report that a lot of things have happened but not towards the solution that we were recommending in 2006, which is, we need a compulsory product stewardship scheme in place where the cost of recycling is covered in the cost of new product.''
Instead, central government has supported user-pays at the point of disposal, while it waits for the market to come up with a solution. Mr Zwimpfer says there are a couple of problems with that.
Firstly, people are reluctant to shell out to dispose of technology.
''We disagree with anybody that thinks it is a good idea to make consumers pay for e-waste, when they can dispose of it so easily into a landfill at a very low cost.
"They can tip it at the side of the road, they can leave it outside the Salvation Army, they can put it outside their gate, they can do all sorts of things, and we already have experience of people doing all those things.''
It also tends to be the case that the people who end up with old equipment past its use-by date are in the ''lower income communities'', and least able to cover the cost of its disposal.
Secondly, the market does not look like addressing the problem any time soon, despite the Government's insistence that a voluntary product stewardship system, implemented by business, is the best option, Mr Zwimpfer says.
''We are saying this market will not take care of it, it is a clear market failure,'' he said.
''In our 2010 report [a follow-up to the 2006 document], we had economists, we had experts in all the different areas all saying get on with the product stewardship scheme.
"There is a clear market failure in this country around handling e-waste.''
While New Zealand has prevaricated, Australia has come up with the blueprint, Mr Zwimpfer says.
It has established a co-regulatory approach, managed by industry but regulated by government to ensure all the players comply and contribute to the cost.
Much the same set of companies operate in New Zealand.
''So it is not a big leap for them, but they won't leap until the Government says `we are going to make it compulsory'.''
Indeed, ''a number of submissions'' from the electronics industry to a 2009 Ministry for the Environment discussion paper raised the idea of an ''advanced fee to fund recovery of used equipment'', predicated on regulation to ensure everyone shared the load.
The Australian system adds about $20 up front when buying a new computer, a sum Mr Zwimpfer says would cause hardly a ripple.
New Zealand already has the capability to process old technology returned under such a scheme, with several businesses operating in the e-waste recycling and refurbishment area.
The big computer companies - Dell, HP, IBM and Toshiba, to name a few - all have strong international positions on appropriate recycling, Mr Zwimpfer said.
''Internationally they are very strong, but within a country they need that assurance from a government that actually, if we are playing in your patch, you have to make sure everybody plays by the rules.''
Ms Irvine says Dunedin residents are in the fortunate position that their old computers are taken off their hands free (there is a charge for the monitors), at a collection point at the Green Island landfill.
But she makes the point that other technology - such as old DVD players and the like - could also be diverted from landfills towards recycling under a product stewardship regime.
''Australia has now got to a place where it is taking basically anything that has a battery or a cord. That's where we want to be, that's where product stewardship should take it.''
A remit is going to the Local Government New Zealand conference later this month, under the name of Greater Wellington regional councillor Paul Bruce, calling for the introduction of the Australian model here.
There are signs the Government is coming around.
In a speech in May Environment Minister Amy Adams said she thought the country could do better on waste minimisation ''and the time may be right for a different approach''.
''For those waste streams where voluntary, non-regulatory intervention is not solving the waste problem, fair and effective solutions need to be assessed,'' she said.
''This may require a levelling out of the playing field for all members of an industry, not just those that are willing to participate from the outset.
''The obvious option in these situations is to declare a priority product and regulate to manage the free riders.''
Mr Zwimpfer says he would like to see a timeline on that.
