Chapter 2Current waste management and recycling practices in Australia

2.1As detailed in the previous chapter, Australia's waste levels are increasing. While most waste is comprised of building and demolition materials, it also includes substantial quantities of organics (both household and commercial), hazardous waste, and nearly 8 million tonnes (Mt) of paper, cardboard andplasticsannually.

2.2To manage this waste, Australia implements waste management and recycling practices, operating in accordance with various legislative and policy frameworks, including international treaties, state and territory government laws and Australian Government export and import conditions.

2.3This chapter examines the key frameworks and targets driving Australia's current approach to waste reduction and recycling, including the National Waste Policy Action Plan.

2.4This chapter also puts forward the general concerns raised by submitters and witnesses about the state of waste reduction and recycling in Australia, before further chapters of the report provide detailed information on specific elements and issues of the resource recovery sector.

2.5Key concerns raised in this chapter include inadequate progress towards the National Waste Policy Action Plan targets; regulatory fragmentation between state and territory jurisdictions; and the need for swift, decisive leadership and action at the national level to harmonise waste management and recycling practices and frameworks.

2.6The next chapter outlines the key elements of a circular economy, Australia’s transition towards a circular economy, and the recommendations put forward by the Circular Economy Ministerial Advisory Group (CEMAG) and Productivity Commission regarding Australia’s transition.

National waste policies and action plans

2.7In 2018, the federal, state and territory governments agreed to a National Waste Policy (Waste Policy) and, in 2019, an associated National Waste Policy Action Plan (2019 Action Plan), based on circular economy principles.[1]

2.8The Waste Policy provided a framework for collective action to improve waste management by businesses, governments, communities, and individuals until 2030.[2] The policy outlined five principles for waste management to enable Australia to transition to a circular economy:

(1)Avoid waste

(2)Improve resource recovery

(3)Increase use of recycled material and build demand and markets for recycled products

(4)Better manage material flows to benefit human health, the environment, and the economy

(5)Improve information to support innovation, guide investment and enable informed consumer decisions.[3]

2.9The associated 2019 Action Plan set seven non-binding, voluntary targets and 80actions to achieve the ambitions listed in the Waste Policy. The seventargetsare:

(1)Ban the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres, commencing in the second half of 2020

(2)Reduce total waste generated in Australia by 10 per cent per person by 2030

(3)80 per cent average resource recovery rate from all waste streams following the waste hierarchy by 2030

(4)Significantly increase the use of recycled content by governments and industry

(5)Phase out problematic and unnecessary plastics by 2025

(6)Halve the amount of organic waste sent to landfill by 2030

(7)Make comprehensive, economy-wide and timely data publicly available to support better consumer, investment and policydecisions.[4]

Progress against the 2019 Action Plan targets

2.10In providing a submission to the committee in 2024, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) advised that three of the seven objectives in the 2019 Action Plan have not been met, three have only been partly met, and one—the export bans—was implemented or on track.[5]

2.11Table 2.1 provides a breakdown of progress made against each target in the 2019 Action Plan, as of April 2024.

Source: DCCEEW, Submission 7, p. 4.

2.12In response to questions from the committee, DCCEEW provided further details on progress on several targets. In May 2024, Ms Kate Lynch, Division Head from the Circular Economy Division of DCCEEW, advised that:

for Target 2 (total waste per person), it was expected to see 'some ongoing increase in that over the next few years' and that Australia was 'not tracking particularly well against that target';

for Target 3 (80 per cent resource recovery by 2030), while it was possible the target may be met, the more likely expectation for 2030 was a 'shortfall of maybe nine or 10 per cent';and

for Target 6 (halving organic waste), it was expected that 'there will be a shortfall' in meeting the 2030target.[8]

2.13Ms Lynch concluded that progress against the 2030 targets was 'not that heartening', and continued that:

It's something that we reported collectively—the Resource Recovery Reference Group essentially provided advice to environment ministers in 2023 on this issue. Ministers have given us instructions, effectively, to revise and update the National Waste Policy Action Plan to better target these efforts and ensure that we're putting the greatest effort into those things that we think will actually shift the dial a bit towards these targets.[9]

Stakeholder views on the 2019 Action Plan

2.14While inquiry participants were broadly supportive of the 2019 Action Plan, some argued that there were gaps in the targets, and many expressed concerns at the lack of progress towards the targets.

2.15The Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia (WMRR) commended the development of the 2019 Action Plan, saying thatitmarked:

…the first time since about 2014 there was any investment in our sector nationally. That was really important, because up until then the states had been driving a lot of the policy.[10]

2.16MRA Consulting Group similarly approved of the 'very credible targets…[in the action plan which] take Australia a long way towards achieving a more Circular Economy'.[11]

2.17The Local Government Association of Queensland stated that the action plan targets will be 'central' to the transition towards a circular economy,[12] and recommended that 'new targets…be set that properly reflect a circular economy future state, including specific targets on product design regarding re-use, repairability and full product life-cycle stewardship'.[13]

2.18Despite broad support for the 2019 Action Plan targets, submitters criticised the fact that the targets were not mandatory. For example, the Australian Marine Conservation Society and WWF Australia pointed out the lack of ambitious, mandatory waste reduction targets, stating:

…Target 2 of the National Waste Policy is a modest 10% reduction in waste generated per person in Australia by 2030. It also does not appear that this target has ever been disaggregated by material—for example, how much Australia expects to cut from organics or plastics, streams.[14]

2.19Several submitters also commented that the targets overemphasise recycling and overlook the importance of avoiding and reducing waste generation.[15] Catholic Religious Australia stated that:

Government goals to reduce the amount of plastic waste, including those articulated in the 2018 National Waste Policy…[and] the 2019 National Waste Policy Action Plan…emphasise the recycling of plastic over reducing its production and consumption. This ignores the reality that recycling plastic is inefficient, expensive and hazardous, and that there is little demand for recycled plastics…[16]

2.20A range of stakeholders lamented the lack of progress towards the action plan targets, including MRA Consulting Group who said, 'we have little to no chance, of achieving the Targets with the current policy settings',[17] and pointed to findings of the Australian National Audit Office which suggested the implementation of the action plan 'was only partially effective'.[18]

2.21The Waste Contractors and Recyclers Association of NSW (WCRA) also warned that progress on the delivery of the action plan was 'limited' and suggested that 'the likelihood of reaching the targets is tenuous at best'.[19]

2024 Action Plan

2.22In recognition that more needed to be done to bolster Australia’s efforts towards the 2030 targets, Commonwealth, state and territory environment ministers agreed to a revised action plan in December 2024. The 2024 Action Plan builds on the work of the 2019 Action Plan and highlights three priority areas where governments will direct their efforts to achieve the targets:

(1)Government legislation, regulation, policies, standards andguidelines

(2)Investment in infrastructure, procurement and funding support

(3)Market development and support through innovation, reducing barriers and generating demand.[20]

2.23At the committee's February 2025 hearing, Mr Hutchison, a Branch Head within DCCEEW's Circular Economy Division, noted that, in addition to setting the above priority areas, the 2024 Action Plan:

…identif[ied] what waste trends and what materials those priorities should then be focused on… What environment ministers agreed in December is that, now we have this new action plan, each government will go away and develop an implementation plan with those priorities and streams in mind and look to publish them by the middle of the year.[21]

2.24The 2024 Action Plan provided further details and updates on progress towards the seven targets outlined above:

Target 1: the 2024 Action Plan indicates that the focus going forward will be on building Australia’s capacity to turn waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres into high-value, recycled products.[22]

Target 2: the most recent data shows the amount of total waste generated per person was 2.88 tonnes in 2022-23, down from 2.93 tonnes in 2020-21.[23]

Target 3: the most recent data shows 66 per cent of resources were recovered in 2022-23, an increase from 63 per cent in 2020-21.[24]

Target 4: the 2024 Action Plan notes that four governments havewhole-of-government sustainable procurement policies in place, and there is a National Framework for Recycled Content Traceability to assist businesses to use recycled content.[25]

Target 5:all states and territories have implemented lightweight plastic shopping bag bans and have progressed bans on certain other single-use plastics.[26] The most recent data shows that while plastics recovery increased to 412 500 tonnes in 2021-22 from 291 000 tonnes in 2016-17, plastics consumption increased to 3.9 Mt in 2021-22 from around 2.9Mt in 2016-17.[27]

Target 6: the most recent data shows the amount of organic waste sent to landfill was 5.4 Mt in 2022-23, down from 5.9 Mt in 2020-21.[28]

Target 7: the 2024 Action Plan notes there is a national waste data viewer, Australian (non-hazardous) waste and resource recovery infrastructure database, waste export data viewer, organics kerbside collections services data viewer, and Recycling Modernisation Fund data viewer.[29]

Regulatory fragmentation

2.25The committee heard from submitters and witnesses that the distinct waste management and resource recovery roles across various levels of government, and competing local and international requirements, created confusion and fragmentation across the sector. This was having a direct impact on Australia's ability to meet its various action plan targets and hampering efforts to improve environmental outcomes.

2.26Several submitters raised concerns about the complexity of the regulatory environment for waste, and the lack of uniformity and cooperation between governments, resulting in Australia not being on track to meet the 2030 targets.

2.27It was also made clear to the committee that before Australia can progress to a circular economy (discussed later in this report), it will need to address the current fragmented, unclear and costly approach to waste management and resource recovery across the country, through significant, national regulatoryreform.

2.28The final report of CEMAG, presented to Minister Plibersek and the Australian Government in December 2024, reflected stakeholder concerns about the fragmented nature of waste management and recycling. CEMAG found that different definitions and standards across borders significantly increased administration and costs and discouraged the use of recycled materials. It observed that:

…regulatory inconsistencies or incongruities across jurisdictions can unnecessarily hinder market development and make it difficult for businesses to scale economically productive activities at a national level.

A common example is the classification of waste materials. When materials are diverted from landfill for recycling, they often retain their 'waste' classification, even if they have the same properties as virgin materials. This classification increases handling and transport costs and restricts reuse potential, making recycled materials less competitive.[30]

2.29The WMRR submitted that there has been limited cooperation between the states to reach a national consensus:

This has had an adverse impact on not just the [waste and resource recovery] industry but business more generally having to respond to individual state requirements, adding costs and complexity to business, as state governments try to outgreen each other.[31]

2.30The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of WMRR, Ms Gayle Sloan, told the committee that state-based responses to issues in the waste management and resource recovery sector were arising due to a lack of a national drive, and that the community did not want 'confusing' state-by-state approaches.[32]

2.31Re.Group, an Australian company that designs, builds, operates and maintains recycling facilities, asserted that there is a 'lack of support from local government in establishing the necessary infrastructure to achieve Australia's overarching recovery goals'. As a result, Re.Group explained that it 'is not alone in having horror stories of seeking approval to convert perfectly good sites (such as a former recycling facility) into reprocessing facilities, and having years of delays and obfuscation from local government'.[33]

2.32Re.Group advised that it took longer to get approval for a new recycling facility in NSW than a mine:

We are talking about years…we have equipment sitting in a shed as we've been waiting two years for approval to put that equipment together. This is the simplest of possible local government modifications…we're also 3½ or four years into a state-significant development for a new recycling facility in Sydney… So our ability to respond quickly to policy changes is very, very limited… We've got to deal with the states. Even if you're in a state significant development, local government is the major respondent into there. So you're still stuck in all these different layers of trying to work through the approvals.[34]

2.33Huhtamaki, a food packaging producer, noted that issues with jurisdictional fragmentation were known. However, instead of being addressed, they had developed further as 'more states and territories in Australia introduce or are seeking to introduce their own packaging regulations, each of which have their own unique requirements and objectives, inconsistent with neighbouring states'. By way of example, Huhtamaki observed that:

…different products have been banned in each jurisdiction, the definitions used such as 'single use', 'reusable', 'certified-compostable' and even 'plastic' are inconsistent or non-existent, and the variety of timelines adopted have created significant barriers to innovate and comply. Policy makers have also largely failed to sequence regulatory measures with the availability of collection and recovery infrastructure, creating a gap that forces industry to adopt interim, sub-optimal solutions and diverts investments from long-term innovations that have a genuine net-environmental benefit.[35]

2.34Dr Richard Kirkman, CEO of Veolia Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), told the committee that it would 'absolutely' be beneficial 'if there was some commonality between the states on call of the policy areas to avoid shipment between states' to minimise adverse outcomes.[36]

2.35Representatives from the Waste, Recycling Industry Association Queensland (WRIQ) likewise expressed frustration with the fragmented nature of waste management in Australia. The CEO of WRIQ, Ms Alison Price, told the committee of the organisation's ongoing frustration at 'the myriad of overlapping and disjointed policy decisions which impact [the] industry from the three levels of government', and further frustration within those layers at:

…the siloed culture of the various departments and offices. In this complex and often confusing policy environment, there are existing waste contractors who have hundreds of years of combined industry experience in pioneering essential sanitation services for our communities and who are trying to evolve into a circular economy industry with enhanced resource recycling and energy recovery. This transformation depends on massive new investment and infrastructure systems, and the confidence that comes from a stable and coherent policy landscape.[37]

2.36Ms Price pointed to a lack of cohesion both between jurisdictions and between various political parties, while calling for progress via a unified approach:

What we've got in the waste and recycling industry is a lot of politics… What I'd love to see for this industry is for us to take the politics out of it and for us to work together—both sides of parliament—to come up with some better recycling solutions for all Australians, because this issue is too important for politics. Both sides have done great things; both sides have done some silly things. Industry has a lot of knowledge, and we'd really like to work with you to fix things.[38]

2.37The Boomerang Alliance, a peak non-profit organisation working to support waste reduction across the Asia Pacific region, argued that 'the lack of a nationally adopted framework has consequences for State and Territory jurisdictions, inevitably creating policy inconsistencies'. The Boomerang Alliance reported that:

Already we are witnessing different interpretations of circular economy practices. There are a number of States who are using different wording, removing the term highest resource value from circular economy principles. This has removed a very clear policy intent and created confusion about the principles. For example, in Victoria and Western Australia in particular, mixed waste incineration to extract energy is being characterised as part of a circular economy. It is not.[39]

Australian Government efforts to support regulatory harmonisation

2.38Noting this fragmentation across jurisdictions, there are efforts underway to harmonise waste management and resource recovery across Australia.

2.39Officials from DCCEEW acknowledged the challenges between the three layers of government, and the constitutional responsibilities around waste management and resource recovery—which largely sit with state and territory governments. Notwithstanding this, Ms Lynch of DCCEEW explained that the Commonwealth does play a role in certain circumstances, and pointed to the provisions of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 (RAWR Act) relating to exports and product stewardship.[40]

2.40Regarding consultation with the various states and territories and reducing inconsistencies, Ms Lynch advised that DCCEEW engaged in:

…fairly formalised and regular communication and collaboration with the other levels of government. For three years now, we have run what's called the Resource Recovery Reference Group. This, effectively, includes senior representatives from all levels of government as well as the peak industry groups and a few of the peak non-government groups who specialise in activities in this space. That group meets on a very regular basis. It's charged, effectively, with oversight of the National Waste Policy Action Plan… That includes, effectively, oversight of how the implementation of the waste export bans are working and a whole range of other things. That regular consultation certainly helps to ensure that we are aware of issues that have been raised or that perhaps present at the first level.

…we have ALGA [Australian Local Government Association] as a member of that Resource Recovery Reference Group. We also hear directly from the states and territories about emerging issues.

…Australia's environment ministers also have a fairly robust agenda of discussion and issues that relate to this broad space.[41]

2.41Ms Lynch continued that harmonisation, and a recognition that states and territories did not operate their own self-contained systems for resource recovery, was 'definitely front of mind [for the Australian government] and it's something that is a focus of effort both at an officials level and a ministerial level'.[42] Ms Lynch explained that:

…Through the Environment Ministers' Meeting agenda, there is an active program of work around harmonising the way that things are done across the states and territories. That applies not only to the phase-out of plastic items but also to the way that materials are collected and what communities are told are recyclable and nonrecyclable. There's work underway on kerbside collections. There's also work to harmonise the way that the container deposit schemes are run and operated.[43]

2.42The committee received evidence that, in light of the slow progress at the national level, some jurisdictions are already pressing ahead with their own regulations in various areas, for example product stewardship for batteries (discussed later in this report).

Calls for a national framework

2.43The committee heard that there were limited efforts from the Australian Government and DCCEEW on national harmonisation, with multiple calls from submitters and witnesses for a cohesive, consistent and targeted national approach to waste management and resource recovery.

2.44For example, the former Chair of CEMAG emphasised the importance of any rules regarding the circular economy being enacted 'in a consistent way across the states and the Commonwealth', stating:

It needs a national cooperative approach. Neither the states nor the Commonwealth have exclusive jurisdiction. They've both got constitutional powers over important aspects of the circular economy. The best way forward, in our view, is for a cooperative agreement between the Commonwealth and the states around the circular economy and the actions that are going to be taken.[44]

2.45CEMAG's final report recommended the Commonwealth, state and territory governments work together to 'harmonise regulations, standards and specifications related to the circular economy, resource recovery and waste', with a 'clear mandate and authority to coordinate and align standards across jurisdictions'.[45] Doing so would 'establish the pace and direction for Australia's transition, clearly outlining priorities for governments, industry, researchers and others to focus their efforts towards'.[46]

2.46The Law Council of Australia (Law Council) argued for a national approach and consistent policy measures which would help to facilitate a 'coherent, efficient and environmentally responsible approach to waste reduction and reuse'. The Law Council considered that this was a:

…necessary step in Australia's achievement of its circular economy targets, and that the national approach should incorporate consistent policy measures, including application of the polluter pays principle. Inconsistency creates incentive for environmentally irresponsible waste management practices. Consistent policy-making requires active negotiation, development, implementation and enforcement with and alongside State and Territory governments. National Cabinet is an appropriate forum to discuss and implement a national waste reduction and reuse strategy.[47]

2.47The Boomerang Alliance contended that a consistent national approach 'should have been the first priority of the [Australian] government'. It argued that:

The Commonwealth must recognise that certain matters, and the circular economy and product stewardship are such matters, have national relevance and should require Commonwealth leadership to establish a consistent policy approach.[48]

2.48The Boomerang Alliance saw the current approach as 'inadequate', suggesting it should be replaced with a regulated national framework:

The current 'advisory approach' to circular economy principles and voluntary (co-regulatory) product stewardship schemes are failing to meet the desired outcomes of the [RAWR] Act. To rectify this… The Commonwealth should develop a circular economy policy framework and seek its national and regulated adoption by all States and Territories.[49]

2.49The Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) submitted that industry was supportive of the phasing out of 'single-use, unnecessary and problematic products', but urged this process to include 'well-reasoned criteria and intentions, clear definitions, consistent rules across jurisdictions, and adequate time to respond, particularly where more environmentally sustainable alternatives are not readily available'.[50]

2.50The AFGC explained that greater clarity in regulation would inform the industry's investment decisions, and that clear plans:

…allow businesses to invest with certainty, change large-scale systems, train their teams and inform their customers—all of which is vital to long term change. The AFGC and our members continue to highlight the importance of harmonisation across systems and jurisdictions, especially concerning single-use plastics, kerbside recycling, and traceability… In the past 5 years, over 15 state-based single use plastic bans on other items have been enacted by individual states and territories, with every ban differing in the items banned, definitions, timing, or permitted alternatives. At times, these policies also diverge from internationally recognised models, like the Waste Hierarchy and Sustainable Packaging Guidelines, by favouring less circular alternatives.[51]

2.51The WMRR argued that Australia should follow the European Union (EU) example, by introducing consistent approaches across the entire supply chain.[52] TheWMRR argued that 'like the EU there should be agreed national priorities and policies set at the Environment Ministers Meeting and then states develop their respective approaches within the agreed parameters'.[53]

2.52The Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR) suggested establishing a board to deliver a harmonised framework for resource recovery and recycling:

A necessary step in national reform is the establishment of an Australian Resource Recovery Code Board (ARRCB), based on the model of the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB), to deliver a nationally harmonised framework for resource recovery and recycling. This framework should sit under a portfolio for industry and economic development, rather than environmental protection.[54]

2.53ACOR argued that this board could be responsible for:

the development of consistent definitions for waste and resource recovery;

the creation of Australian Standards;

informing decision making relating to resource recovery and recycling infrastructure; and

determining the application of waste levies across jurisdictions and between regions to incentivise resource recovery.[55]

Fragmentation in practice: kerbside collection

2.54In 2022-23, kerbside collection services accumulated 9.9 Mt of material, comprising garbage, recycling and organics. However, only 39 per cent of that material was recovered.[56] In addition:

…high levels of contamination in kerbside collection bins contribute to lower recovery rates, as contaminated material is of lower quality, less desirable for use in new products, or cannot be recycled. Contamination occurs when the wrong items are placed in the wrong bins, or when containers that haven't been emptied are placed in the recycling bin.[57]

2.55Kerbside collection of waste was pointed to throughout the inquiry as a primary example of how regulatory and jurisdictional fragmentation is hampering efforts at resource recovery and impeding the capture of valuable materials forrecycling.

2.56The Figure 2.1, from the AFGC submission, highlights the level of fragmentation across various waste recovery streams in Australia:

Source: Australian Food and Grocery Council, Submission 59, p. 8.

2.57According to Visy, one of Australia’s largest operators of kerbside recycling:

One of the key barriers to increasing recovery rates and recycled content within packaging is the lack of nationwide, harmonised material eligibility. This results in different rules for different council areas, advocacy by brands to have their non-recyclable packaging deemed eligible for kerbside collection, confusion from residents trying to make decisions, increased sorting costs and additional contamination.[58]

2.58Visy argued 'we must be clear as to what is and is not recoverable through kerbside collection'.[59]

2.59ACOR similarly observed that bin lid colours were different across the country and called for a more national approach. ACOR advised that it had:

…mapped all the bin lid colours across the over-500 local government areas…there are over 80 different configurations across our country. Starting there would be an easy first step; there is an Australian standard.[60]

2.60ACOR argued for the simplification and standardisation of kerbside collections across states, which would 'help the community to better understand what goes where'. However, Ms Toumbourou, ACOR’s CEO, acknowledged that:

…given the scale and the distribution across Australia…there might be different markets for different types of recycled commodities in different places. So there is a balance to be struck there, but simplifying would help. Even standardising bin lid colours would help. There is an Australian standard… I imagine it would be a no-brainer just to, over time, shift to that as we replace our bin collection infrastructure.[61]

2.61The Australian Beverages Council Limited called for the government to support the harmonisation of kerbside recycling inclusions across Australia, 'to create a consistent supply of recycled material'.[62]

2.62The AFGC recommended national harmonisation of waste and recycling regulations across jurisdictions focusing on single-use plastics, kerbside collections, container deposit schemes (CDS) and compostable packaging 'to minimise confusion and build community trust and industry confidence'.[63]

2.63Separately, Visy argued that a nationally standardised and harmonised CDS is required. As an example of current differences, Visy explained that wine and spirit bottles are eligible in Queensland but not in other states.[64]

2.64Visy expressed support for 'kerbside bin harmonisation' and the 'rollout of the Victorian 4-bin model, which includes a standard waste bin, a commingled recycling bin for paper and cardboard, rigid plastics, and metals, a FOGO [food organics and garden organics] bin, and a standalone glass recycle bin,nationwide'.[65]

2.65Visy submitted that 'with a harmonised kerbside bin system, further methods could be adopted to assist consumers to make informed decisions about their recycling. For example, a coloured dot could then be applied to all pieces of packaging that would align to the colour of the lid of the correct bin'.[66]

National Kerbside Collections Roadmap

2.66In June 2023, Australia's environment ministers agreed that a national roadmap would be developed for staged improvements to the harmonisation of kerbside collections, taking into account the circumstances of metropolitan, regional and remote communities. This was to be considered by ministers in 2024.[67]

2.67In December 2024, the National Kerbside Collections Roadmap (the Roadmap) was agreed in-principle by the environment ministers. The Roadmap provides that Australian governments will work together on the following three priorities:

Priority 1:transitioning to consistent colours for bin lids, labels, and signs to make it easier for Australians to identify the correct kerbside collection bin.

Priority 2: implementing minimum national collection lists for kerbside recycling and organics collections to improve the consistency of items that can be collected in kerbside collection bins.

Priority 3: coordinating action to increase Australia's capacity to collect and recycle additional priority items to reduce the amount of recyclable packaging and organics being sent to landfill.[68]

2.68The Roadmap states that from 2025, state and territory governments will work with industry and local governments to transition to consistent bin lids, labels and kerbside collection services. All bin lids, labels and signs (for any new or replaced kerbside infrastructure) will need to comply with the relevant Australian Standard,[69] and should be as follows:

Red lid: general waste;

Yellow lid: mixed recycling;

Light blue lid: paper and cardboard;

Purple lid: glass recycling; and

Lime green lid: organics (including food organics and garden organics).[70]

2.69From 2025, all governments and industry will also implement minimum national collection lists for kerbside recycling and organics collection, aimed at improving the consistency of items that can be collected kerbside (with state and territory governments to work with local governments in outer regional and remote areas, where flexibility might be needed to improve resource recovery).[71]

2.70The Roadmap includes a reporting framework and periodic national review process, to consider progress on the above actions and to 'promote continual improvement in the delivery of consistent and high performing kerbside collection' across Australia.[72]

Calls for action

2.71It was made clear to the committee that the issues in Australia with waste management and resource recovery are well known and have repeatedly been brought to the government's attention. Evidence stressed that further discussion was not needed; instead, the industry called for prompt action and investment to address Australia's growing waste recovery and recycling needs.

2.72The committee also heard concerns regarding specific elements of the waste management and resource recovery framework and processes across Australia, which are canvassed later in this report. Below are some of the general observations and issues put forward in evidence about the state of the sector and the need for action.

2.73Ms Gayle Sloan, the CEO of WMRR, suggested that there was not a need for more people or more conversations in this space; but rather a need to build capacity. Ms Sloan argued that the 'capacity within or the knowledge of the sector' has not grown, that more accountability around delivery was needed, and concluded that: 'We don't need to keep talking. We need to do'.[73]

2.74Dr Kirkman of Veolia ANZ similarly warned that it could 'dangerous' to 'set up more committees to talk about what the solutions are', because 'we know exactly what we need to do'. Dr Kirkman pointed to CDS that have been successfully implemented and stated there were positive signs for the waste management and resource recovery industry. However, he noted there were many disparate views in the community about how best to address waste issues:

…the policies that are in place are the right ones, and they've only recently been adopted across most states, to do more recycling, to do more composting, to have energy from waste. All those things make sense. It's just these tweaks, these nuances, where we think 'Maybe listen a bit more to the industry, the people who are doing it', rather than people outside the sector that have good ideas. I've never known a sector like it. Everyone has a view on how waste management should be done. Every householder thinks they know better how waste management should be done.[74]

2.75In noting the need for action, the WCRA argued that government policies must align with the 'climate change, renewable energy and industry reform agenda'. The WCRA contended that the 'disconnect between these policy areas' was resulting in 'significant disruption' to the sector, and that:

Without a fundamental realignment by the government, waste policy outcomes and targets remain unachievable, leading to unacceptable negative impacts on community amenities, societal liveability, and the environment in future years.[75]

Footnotes

[1]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), Consultation Regulation Impact Statement: Phasing out certain waste exports, December 2019, p.13.

[2]DCCEEW, National Waste Policy, 7 February 2025,www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/how-we-manage-waste/national-waste-policy (accessed 14 February 2025).

[3]DCCEEW, National Waste Policy (accessed 20 May 2024).

[4]DCCEEW, National Waste Policy Action Plan 2019, p. 2.

[5]DCCEEW, Submission 7, p. 4.

[6]The 2019 National Waste Policy Action Plan outlined actions to implement the 2018 National Waste Policy. One of those targets was to ‘Ban the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres, commencing in the second half of 2020’. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 was not introduced into Parliament until August 2020 and passed both Houses in December 2020. Export bans on waste plastic, paper, glass, and tyres were phased in during 2021 and 2022.

[7]The eight problematic and unnecessary single-use plastics agreed to by all Australian governments in 2021 were: lightweight shopping bags, fragmentable plastics, straws, utensils and stirrers, bowls and plates, expanded polystyrene, consumer food containers and goods packaging, and microbeads in personal products. DCCEEW, Submission 7, p. 4.

[8]Ms Kate Lynch, Division Head, Circular Economy Division, DCCEEW, Committee Hansard, 8May2024, p. 63.

[9]Ms Kate Lynch, Division Head, Circular Economy Division, DCCEEW, Committee Hansard, 8 May 2024, p. 63. For an update on the progress of ongoing action items under the 2019 Action Plan, see: DCCEEW, answers to written questions on notice, 15 July 2024 (received 30 July 2024).

[10]Ms Gayle Sloan, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia (WMRR), Committee Hansard, 8 May 2024, p.36.

[11]MRA Consulting Group, Submission 31, p. 6.

[12]Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ), Submission 25, p. 4.

[13]LGAQ, Submission 25, p. 6.

[14]WWF Australia and Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS), Submission 68, p. 4.

[15]See, for example, Catholic Religious Australia, Submission 18, p. 6; Minderoo, Submission 52, p. 4; WWF Australia and AMCS, Submission 68, p. 4.

[16]Catholic Religious Australia, Submission 18, p. 6.

[17]MRA Consulting Group, Submission 31, p. 6. See also, Mr Mike Ritchie, Managing Director, MRA Consulting, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 49.

[18]MRA Consulting Group, Submission 31, pp. 62–64. The Australian National Audit Office reported in September 2022, via the Australian Government Implementation of the National Waste PolicyActionPlan.

[19]Waste Contractors and Recyclers Association of New South Wales (WCRA), Submission 1, p. 1.

[20]DCCEEW, National Waste Policy Action Plan 2024, p. 1.

[21]Mr Cameron Hutchison, Head, Waste and Resource Recovery Policy Branch, Circular Economy Division, DCCEEW, Committee Hansard, 14 February 2025, p. 15.

[22]DCCEEW, National Waste Policy Action Plan 2024, p. 7.

[23]DCCEEW, National Waste Policy Action Plan 2024, p. 8.

[24]DCCEEW, National Waste Policy Action Plan 2024, p. 9.

[25]DCCEEW, National Waste Policy Action Plan 2024, p. 10. The four governments are: the Australian Government, South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria.

[26]DCCEEW, National Waste Policy Action Plan 2024, p. 11. See also, DCCEEW, National Waste Policy Action Plan Progress Summary Report 2023, p. 24.

[27]DCCEEW, National Waste Policy Action Plan 2024, p. 11.

[28]DCCEEW, National Waste Policy Action Plan 2024, p. 12.

[29]DCCEEW, National Waste Policy Action Plan 2024, p. 13. The limitations of waste data are discussed further in Chapter 1.

[30]Circular Economy Ministerial Advisory Group (CEMAG), Final Report: The Circular Advantage, December 2024, p. 44.

[31]WMRR, Submission 41, pp. 9–10.

[32]Ms Gayle Sloan, CEO, WMRR, Committee Hansard, 8 May 2024, pp. 39–40.

[33]Re.Group, Submission 52, p. 3.

[34]Mr David Singh, Managing Director, Re.Group, Committee Hansard, 8 May 2024, pp. 26–27.

[35]Huhtamaki, Submission 3, p. 2.

[36]Dr Richard Kirkman, CEO, Veolia Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), Committee Hansard, 8May2024, p.53.

[37]Ms Alison Price, CEO, Waste, Recycling Industry Association Queensland (WRIQ), Committee Hansard, 8 May 2024, p. 17.

[38]Ms Alison Price, CEO, WRIQ, Committee Hansard, 8 May 2024, p. 21.

[39]Boomerang Alliance, Submission 11, p. 2.

[40]Ms Kate Lynch, Division Head, Circular Economy Division, DCCEEW, Committee Hansard, 8 May 2024, p. 61.

[41]Ms Kate Lynch, Division Head, Circular Economy Division, DCCEEW, Committee Hansard, 8 May 2024, p. 61.

[42]Ms Kate Lynch, Division Head, Circular Economy Division, DCCEEW, Committee Hansard, 8 May 2024, p. 62.

[43]Ms Kate Lynch, Division Head, Circular Economy Division, DCCEEW, Committee Hansard, 8May2024, p. 62.

[44]Professor John Thwaites, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 14 February 2025, p. 4.

[45]CEMAG, Final Report: The Circular Advantage, December 2024, p.43.

[46]CEMAG, Final Report: The Circular Advantage, December 2024, p.25.

[47]Law Council of Australia, Submission 39, p. 3.

[48]Boomerang Alliance, Submission 11, p. 2.

[49]Boomerang Alliance, Submission 11, pp. 1–2.

[50]Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC), Submission 59, p. 6.

[51]AFGC, Submission 59, p. 7.

[52]WMRR, Submission 41, p. 1.

[53]WMRR, Submission 41, p. 10.

[54]Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR), Submission 40, p. 9.

[55]ACOR, Submission 40, p. 10.

[56]DCCEEW, National Kerbside Collections Roadmap: Staged improvements to the consistency of kerbside collections, 2024, p. 5.

[57]DCCEEW, National Kerbside Collections Roadmap: Staged improvements to the consistency of kerbside collections, 2024, p. 7.

[58]Visy, Submission 79, p. 3.

[59]Visy, Submission 79, p. 3.

[60]DCCEEW, National Kerbside Collections Roadmap: Staged improvements to the consistency of kerbside collections, 2024, p. 5.

[61]Ms Suzanne Toumbourou, CEO, ACOR, Committee Hansard, 8 May 2024, p. 4.

[62]Australian Beverages Council Limited, Submission 80, p. 7.

[63]AFGC, Submission 59, p. 3.

[64]Visy, Submission 79, p. 3.

[65]Visy, Submission 79, p. 3.

[66]Visy, Submission 79, p. 3.

[67]DCCEEW, Environment Ministers’ Meeting­ 9 June 2023 Agreed Communique, p. 3.

[68]DCCEEW, National Kerbside Collections Roadmap: Staged improvements to the consistency of kerbside collections, 2024, p. iv.

[69]AS4123.7-2006.

[70]DCCEEW, National Kerbside Collections Roadmap: Staged improvements to the consistency of kerbside collections, 2024, p. 8.

[71]DCCEEW, National Kerbside Collections Roadmap: Staged improvements to the consistency of kerbside collections, 2024, p. 9.

[72]DCCEEW, National Kerbside Collections Roadmap: Staged improvements to the consistency of kerbside collections, 2024, p. 15.

[73]Ms Gayle Sloan, CEO, WMRR, Committee Hansard, 8 May 2024, p. 38.

[74]Dr Richard Kirkman, CEO, Veolia ANZ, Committee Hansard, 8 May 2024, pp. 52–53.

[75]WCRA, Submission 1, p. 1. See also: ARRC, Submission13, p. 1.