Chapter 6Problematic waste streams
6.1While there are various definitions of 'problematic waste', this report adopts a broad definition encompassing waste streams that are challenging because they are unable to be efficiently, economically or safely handled through the standard waste management and resource recovery system, or that can be hazardous to human health or the environment if improperly disposed. Forms of waste that fall within this category include plastics, electronics, end-of-life solar photovoltaic systems, and batteries. Many of these waste streams have been discussed in other chapters throughout this report.
6.2This chapter will focus on the considerable evidence received about the impacts of plastics (especially soft plastics and single-use plastics) and the development and deployment of plastic waste management practices and infrastructure. The complexities in the plastic waste stream are highlighted by the low rates of recovery and recycling for various plastic types and the proportion of recovered plastic material in Australia which is currently processed offshore (discussed below).
6.3This chapter also discusses cross-cutting issues in waste management, including contaminants in the waste stream, and the role of converting waste materials into energy.
6.4The next chapter considers waste export regulations and submitter views on the impact, need and efficacy of the exporting rules.
Australian Plastics Flows and Fates Study
6.5The most recent national data on plastics was released in June 2024, through the Australian Plastics Flows and Fates Study 2021-22 (Plastics Study), prepared for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). The Australian Plastic Flows and Fates project has been conducted annually since 2000 and provides a time series picture of plastics flows across all polymer types and applications.
6.6The key findings of the Plastics Study include that for 2021-22:
3.92 million tonnes (Mt) of plastics were consumed in Australia, with 2.85Mt of plastics reaching their end-of-life in Australia;
412500 tonnes of plastics were recovered, of which:
396300 tonnes were recycled; and
16200 tonnes were sent to energy recovery;
the national plastics recovery rate (recycling and energy recovery) was 14.5percent, an increase on the 2020-21 rate of 14 per cent—but leaving more than 85percent of plastics going directly to landfill;
the national plastics recycling rate was 13.9 per cent, compared with 12.6percent in 2020-21; and
plastics reprocessing capacity in Australia was approximately 483600tonnes per year at the end of 2022, whereas actual reprocessing in 2021-22 was 267700 tonnes (55percent of potential capacity).
6.7The Plastics Study observed that there is an 'ongoing and significant challenge with respect to increasing recovery of scrap plastics', with local manufacturers of certain resins ceasing production over the last 13 years. The study noted that 59percent of plastic products are now manufactured overseas and:
…assuming the recovered plastics are to be incorporated into new and similar products, then a significant proportion of this material must be returned into these overseas supply chains at an acceptable price and quality.
Recycled content of plastic products
6.8The Plastics Study found that in 2021-22, 1.59 Mt of plastic resins went into local plastic product manufacturing, predominantly sourced from locally manufactured and imported virgin resin (1.37 Mt) and locally processed or overseas sourced recyclate into local manufacturing (214900 tonnes).
6.9The Plastics Study concluded that:
The overall average proportion of recycled content used across all local plastic product manufacturing of 13.5%. The quantity of plastic recyclate includes material sourced from both pre-consumer and post-consumer scrap sources. This is a reasonably notable increase on the 11.5% recycled content rate estimated for 2020-21.
The unique issues with plastics
6.10Tangaroa Blue Foundation explained that:
Recycling is still currently a challenge for many items due to the numerous types of plastic included in their design, e.g., a plastic water bottle may use PET [polyethylene terephthalate] for the bottle, PP [polypropylene] for the bottle cap and PE [polyethylene] for the label. By using three types of plastic, the drink bottle is more difficult to recycle because each type of plastic must be separated prior to recycling. Moving forward, we must design and develop plastic items for which there is no alternative material to those that can be recycled more easily… Design is a critical factor in determining which plastics are necessary because some items are unnecessarily over-packaged.
6.11To assist processing facilities, Tangaroa Blue Foundation suggested that Australia 'mandate the use of single polymer types…as often as possible for plastic products' to make separating easier for facilities, and 'enhancing the overall speed and cost-effectiveness of the recycling process'.
6.12Similar points were raised in relation to soft plastics, which the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SECOS Group Ltd, a company that manufactures sustainable packaging materials, called 'the more sinister, more difficult plastics'. Ms Gayle Sloan of the Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia explained that:
One of the reasons that soft plastics is so problematic is that we've got different polymers—as many as seven polymers within the soft plastic—and they all act differently. You can't therefore put it all into chemical; you can only do it with the polyethylene. Unless we mandate and restrict the types of polymers placed on market—which even New Zealand has done—we are making it really hard for ourselves.
6.13Options for the management of soft plastics are discussed below.
Environmental and human health impacts
6.14The committee heard strong concerns regarding the environmental and human health impacts of plastics and their associated waste management and recycling processes.
6.15The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that the 'plastic crisis is also a health crisis' and that 'scientific research has documented a wide range of risks and potential adverse impacts on human health at every stage of the plastics lifecycle'. The WHO noted that scientific studies have shown some of the chemicals and additives in plastics 'can cause hormonal imbalance, reproductive disorders, infertility and increase the risks of renal disease and cancer' and are linked to risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, amongst other health issues.
6.16Minderoo indicated there is extensive scientific evidence showing that harmful chemicals found in plastic packaging can leach into the liquid and food that humans consume and may lead to various diseases. Minderoo submitted that:
…plastic additives disrupt endocrine function and increase risk for infertility, obesity, cardiovascular disease, renal disease, and cancers. Infants in the womb are at particularly high risk, with plastic chemical exposures in parents linked to their babies’ increased risk of prematurity, stillbirth, low birth weight, birth defects of reproductive organs, impaired neurodevelopment and lung growth, and childhood cancer; as are young children, with early-life exposures to plastic chemicals increasing the risk of various diseases in later years.
6.17Plastic chemicals can also leach into the air, water and soil throughout a product’s life cycle. Minderoo suggested that there should be clear and targeted design standards to address chemical safety as well as a traceability system to provide information on plastics and their chemicals of concern.
6.18Similarly, Toxics Free Australia (TFA) submitted that 'packaging waste has been a prime source of PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] contamination entering the composting and recycling sectors'. TFA argued that a major issue is:
…chemical contamination caused by plastic waste recycling especially in the push to use non-recyclable plastics and other residual wastes in roads, building and construction materials and infrastructure, and through plastic reprocessing (pelletisation and thermo-extruded recycled plastic products).
6.19Ms Cip Hamilton of the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) told the committee that it is estimated up to 145 000 tonnes of plastic leak into Australia's environment every year, amounting to over 250 kilograms of plastic per minute. She observed that 'plastics leak into the environment at all stages through production, use and end disposal' and that:
Plastic pollution is having devastating effects on marine life and, increasingly, ocean ecosystems. Plastics can also have a devastating impact on the health of our corals, the building blocks of our iconic reefs. Preventing plastics from entering our environment benefits our oceans and wildlife, Australia's fishing and tourism industries, human health and prevents unnecessary wastage of resources.
6.20AMCS provided the committee with a report that elaborated on the harm that plastics can cause to marine environments and animals:
Animals that ingest marine plastic can face significant harm, and for a range of animals, such as seabirds and turtles, even ingesting one piece of plastic can be enough to cause severe damage. Research tells us that macroplastics—large plastic items such as plastic bags, balloons and cutlery—cause the most damage to marine animals through ingestion or entanglement, but emerging research is beginning to show how harmful microplastics—plastic particles less than 5mm in diameter—can be to our marine environments, our marine animals and our own health.
6.21DCCEEW recognises a list of chemicals of concern used in some plastics, including diethylhexyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, bisphenol A and nonylphenol, due to their high aquatic toxicity and endocrine disruption concerns. The list is 'intended for use by importers, exporters, manufacturers and retailers of plastic products, to inform environmentally sound product choices and contribute to global phase-out efforts'.
6.22In June 2024, environment ministers noted that removing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in packaging is an urgent priority for all jurisdictions and will be dealt with through national design standards.
National Roadmap: Harmonising action on problematic and unnecessary plastics
6.23In December 2024, environment ministers agreed to release a summary of a national roadmap which outlines a process to harmonise action on problematic and unnecessary plastics. The stated rationale behind the development of the roadmap was that:
…the current approaches taken in each jurisdiction to manage similar plastics items differently adds complexity for some businesses operating nationally, and puts Australia’s plastics import, export, and manufacturing markets at a disadvantage. Greater harmonisation will also increase opportunities for reuse and market development for alternative products.
6.24The roadmap sets out three Work Areas which will guide Australian governments' collective action:
(a)Harmonising existing actions—to better align existing actions already being taken on plastics
The roadmap identifies 24 plastic items/materials (predominantly single-use) that were regulated differently across jurisdictions as of October 2024, and outlines steps to minimise variations.
(b)Taking future action together—to better align future actions on plastics across Australia
The roadmap outlines that before any jurisdiction progresses regulatory action on new plastic items/materials, the National Plastics Harmonisation Working Group (the Working Group) should advise on alignment and investigate taking possible coordinated action.
(c)Set national model definitions—to harmonise definitions used as far as possible, supporting Work Areas One and Two
The roadmap outlines that the Working Group will develop model definitions for certain terms for use in government initiatives.
Solving Plastic Waste Cooperative Research Centre
6.25Since 1 July 2024, a ten-year Solving Plastic Waste Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) has been examining Australia's plastic waste problem, to:
…ensure that focused, industry-driven collaboration between the research sector, governments and the entire plastics value chain is effectively enabled over the next decade to transform the way plastic products are designed, manufactured, used, recovered, and recycled, and how microplastic soil pollution is remediated. This will be achieved by developing improved product designs, new materials, technologies, and processes, and by exploring new business models and economic systems.
6.26Mr Richard Tegoni, CEO of SECOS Group Ltd, told the committee that SECOS was part of the CRC, and working with universities and key not-for-profit organisations while 'contributing money and using our research and development centre in Melbourne' to deliver 'technology over time to effectively develop the next generation of biopolymers'.
The National Plastics Recycling Scheme for soft plastics
6.27In May 2023, the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) was provided with $985000 by the Australian Government, through the National Product Stewardship Investment Fund, to develop the National Plastics Recycling Scheme (NPRS).
6.28The NPRS aims to collect and process soft plastics back into commodities, including food grade recycled material. The CEO of the AFGC explained that the scheme design is:
…for brands to fund a scheme that allows for kerbside collection of soft plastic where it's available, other collection methods such as return to store or depots where it's not available, and to be able to have the brand owners' fees vary according to whether or not the brands use recycled content and whether they comply with packaging design standards. That's incentivising them to drive change in their packaging. Those monies are then used to fund the incremental costs of collecting and processing the soft plastics... The scheme also requires brands to use recycled content.
6.29A trial was conducted in 2022-23, whereby households in six council areas across New South Wales (NSW), South Australia and Victoria used distinctive bags for separating soft plastics in their commingled recycling bins. The trial also included four materials recovery facilities and other downstream processors. The AFGC advised that the trials were successful 'in proving the community will recycle more soft plastics via the convenience of the kerbside bin', with feedback suggesting that:
…investment confidence to construct the missing soft plastic recycling infrastructure would increase significantly with increased government support.
6.30The AFGC argued that targeted initiatives like the NPRS 'offer significant circular economy benefits', with the focused approach supporting the 'development of tailored circular economy solutions, including infrastructure improvements, to enhance the sustainability of products throughout their lifecycle'.
6.31There was some opposition expressed to the NPRS. Martogg Group commented that the NPRS was an 'avid proponent of chemical recycling of soft plastics as the prime solution' to soft plastic waste. However, Martogg Group suggested that the future of plastics chemical recycling in Australia was 'unclear', and that:
…neither domestic mechanical nor chemical recycling will solve this problem in the absence of meaningful domestic markets for their products.
Export of suitably processed soft plastics will undoubtedly become an increasingly critical part of the flexibles recycling solution.
Soft Plastics Taskforce
6.32On 27 February 2025, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) granted authorisation to Coles Group, Woolworths Group and ALDI Stores to continue collaboration to 'recycle stockpiled soft plastics and continue with the pilot in-store collection program until 31 July 2026'. The ACCC explained that:
The ACCC first authorised this collaboration on 30 June 2023, following the collapse of REDcycle, which operated a soft plastics collection and recycling program. In July 2024, the ACCC granted interim authorisation that allowed the supermarkets to continue to collaborate through the Soft Plastics Taskforce as the previously authorised conduct was due to expire.
6.33In its notification of the proposed authorisation, the ACCC stated that it was 'very concerning that the vast majority of stockpiles left over from REDcycle have not been processed almost two years later' (REDcycle collapsed in 2023). The ACCC further acknowledged that the rate of progress is 'still significantly limited by the available processing capacity of soft plastic processors'.
6.34As of October 2024, there were 43 stores running pilot soft plastics collection schemes, across NSW and Victoria. The pilot programs had collected 36 tonnes of soft plastics.
Single-use plastics
6.35The committee heard that Australia is the world's second-largest producer of single-use plastic waste per person. A wide range of stakeholders underlined the importance of moving away from single-use plastics to a system and culture of reuse and refill.
6.36Ms Hamilton of the AMCS commented that 'individuals…should be able to freely engage in a system that allows them to shop without plastic and to avoid needless disposable items in their day-to-day lives'. Arguing in favour of prioritising reuse and refill, Ms Hamilton stated:
In comparison to a throwaway culture, reuse can provide immense benefits. A reuse and refill system is simple yet impactful. It involves creating products and packaging that can be safely reused multiple times. This approach decreases waste and maximise the value of resources and energy that would otherwise go into producing new materials. Importantly, reuse reduces the need for single-use plastics and reduces plastic pollution.
6.37Product stewardship of plastics and packaging is currently governed by co‑regulatory arrangements between industry and government under the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011. In June 2023, environment ministers agreed to introduce a new packaging regulatory framework including problematic and unnecessary single use plastics. The framework will 'develop mandatory packaging design obligations, so packaging is designed to minimise waste and be recovered, reused, recycled and reprocessed'. Consultation on potential reform options closed in October 2024. DCCEEW is currently considering the feedback received through the consultation process.
Approaches to certain types of plastics
6.38There was a range of discussion around plastic bans and other measures to reduce the amount of plastic waste being produced. It was noted that there are varying types of plastic and that solutions would depend on the type of plastics in the waste stream.
State-based plastic bans
6.39All states and territories have implemented lightweight plastic shopping bag bans (under 35 microns thick). Some jurisdictions like the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia have also banned heavyweight plastic shopping bags (over 35 microns thick). Bans on certain other single-use plastics are in place in a range of states and territories, though there is significant variation in the items/materials that are banned across different jurisdictions.
6.40While acknowledging the 'significant action by states and territories', Minderoo argued that 'efforts to phase out unnecessary single-use packaging and products have lacked effective coordination. Some state and territory governments have had low ambition'.
6.41Ms Leonard of Friends of the Earth Australia suggested that since Australians have accepted a ban on single-use plastic bags, they would be expecting more plastic bans to come. She called for the scope of the bans to be expanded to include 'plastic water bottles…as well as all of the plastic that’s currently captured by 10c container deposit legislation, and just keep the 10c container deposit legislation for glass items only'.
Bioplastics
6.42Bioplastics are different from conventional plastics in that they are biodegradable (where materials are converted to natural substances) or biobased (either in full or in part derived from renewable resources like plants).
6.43There were disparate views put to the committee about the role of bioplastics in addressing waste and moving to a circular economy.
6.44SECOS Group Ltd argued that bioplastics technology was the 'only current solution that can safely replace conventional plastic in the world. There's nothing else in the world that can do it'. Mr Richard Tegoni, CEO of SECOS Group Ltd, hoped that bioplastics would be 'given a priority in the agenda to solve the waste problem for plastic', suggesting that over the complete lifecycle, bioplastic was cheaper than conventional plastic.
6.45Mr Tegoni further explained the difference between conventional plastic and bioplastics:
Standard plastic that has been produced now for decades comes from a petroleum based hydrocarbon method. Usually petrochemical companies produce the resins that produce that. They're made, and they've been made for decades. Compostable plastics use compostable materials, and there are different types of resin grades. Our resin grade uses cornstarch in particular, and cornstarch is a 100 per cent renewable material. There are other materials, other compostable materials and compatibilisers that are used to make sure they're safe. They're tested independently, globally and within Australia to make sure there are no toxins and that there are no residual materials that are left in the environment.
6.46Mr Tegoni pointed out there was currently no regulation on what products could be claimed to be 'biodegradable', and that certified, 'genuinely compostable plastic' in the market was one to two per cent.
6.47As part of the Solving Plastic Waste CRC, Minderoo is working with several organisations to develop 'a process for the Australian production of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), a biodegradable plastic from the bioprocessing of sugarcane feedstock (sugar and bagasse)'.
6.48A representative from WWF Australia observed that while there was 'a lot of excitement around bioplastics', in reality, they make up a 'very tiny fraction of the plastics market globally and in Australia', without a viable treatment and management pathway in Australia. WWF Australia argued that:
A widespread shift from reduction of certain types of single-use plastics or other packaging materials and a wholesale shift to bioplastics is just not a good outcome…for anyone apart from the bioplastics producers.
Waste-to-energy
6.49The role of converting waste materials into energy was discussed during the inquiry, as a way of dealing with certain types of waste. The committee heard mixed views on the economic and environmental impacts of waste-to-energy.
6.50For example, Mr Ralph, CEO of the Australian Resources Recovery Council (formerly the National Waste and Recycling Industry Council) suggested that 'every sensible, mature economy uses an energy-calorific value for the materials that we physically can't do anything with'.
6.51Dr Kirkman, CEO of Veolia Australia and New Zealand, called for Australia to 'double down on recovering energy from non-recyclable, non-compostable waste'. He said Australia was 'one of the only developed countries that puts all its non-recyclable waste into landfill', and he argued there was a 'huge opportunity for anaerobic digestion—so producing renewable biogas, as well as energy from waste'. In discussing waste-to-energy, Dr Kirkman further advised that:
…there are two principal technologies that are globally recognised as being safe and working: there's anaerobic digestion, which just treats food waste and organics, and then there's mixed residual waste, which is not recyclable, which goes to what we call 'energy from waste'. Some people call that incineration; it does have an incineration aspect to it, but we call it energy from waste because it's not just an open bonfire; it's very controlled.
6.52Despite these assurances, there were other witnesses who questioned the impact and efficacy of waste-to-energy processes. Ms Leonard of Friends of the Earth Australia argued that drifts of chemical, including persistent organic pollutant chemicals, could result from waste incineration. Ms Leonard gave the example of the 'bioaccumulation of PFOS [perfluorooctane sulfonate]' near waste-to-energy incineration sites in the Netherlands which leached into chicken eggs from local farms, as well as 'toxic fly ash with the polyphenol bromides leaking into the rivers and leaking into the soil'. Ms Leonard stated that:
For [Australia] to adopt a waste-to-energy project or any kind of industry in that regard is really just kicking the can down the road and creating a concentrated toxic problem for us down the track. That is not a solution… It could be argued that if we start incinerating plastic waste, once we've burnt it for energy, once we've burnt it all, we're going to start looking for more plastic waste to incinerate.
6.53Doctors for the Environment Australia were similarly concerned about potential air quality issues and the greenhouse gas emissions which might be generated by any waste-to-energy combustion processes. The group argued that this solution 'sits toward the bottom of the waste hierarchy and should be considered much less important than reducing, re-using and recycling waste products'.
6.54The Centre for Safe Air emphasised that any new recycling or waste management policies and practices should 'not inadvertently increase the health burden associated with waste', in particular through poor air quality and emissions from waste-to-energy facilities. The centre argued that:
…there is a need for comprehensive human health risk assessments to form part of the EIS process when considering new [waste-to-energy] facilities, taking into account the individual specifications of each facility…
6.55Ms Perrett, President of the Bellarine Catchment Network, argued that waste incineration 'has no part in the circular economy'. Ms Perrett suggested it was 'greenwashing' to call it waste-to-energy, calling it a 'glossy term' which to the community sounded better than landfill. Ms Perrett also noted that there were no operating residual waste incinerators in Australia, with two being built in Western Australia which were '10 years beyond schedule and still not operational'.
6.56Likewise, Martogg Group warned against burning soft plastics to generate energy:
Do not incinerate soft plastics to generate energy since almost all “soft plastics” polyolefin resins are made from oil and gas feedstocks. This is tantamount to burning highly refined fossil fuels which only contributes to GHG [greenhouse gas] production, and it is certainly not recycling.
Contaminants
6.57Contamination of the waste stream is a key issue preventing effective resource recovery and recycling. This can be driven by both contamination in the waste stream, as well as the adequacy of the industry, facilities and regulation supporting resource recovery.
6.58Regarding contaminants and cross-jurisdictional issues, it was put to the committee that there is often an 'inconsistency between the regulatory tolerance for the contaminant within different sectors and at different points within the material supply change [sic]'. Because of this:
…the waste management and recycling industry (the end recipient) is left largely responsible for managing the presence of these contaminants, with stringent (largely unachievable) requirements. It is these stringent requirements which are placing at risk, continued investment in key infrastructure which is pivotal to the federal government meeting its circular economy targets.
6.59To address emerging contaminants in the waste and resource chain, it was suggested that efforts be concentrated at the start of the supply chain to minimise the presence of contaminants, alongside encouragement for state governments to:
…support the waste and recycling sector in working cooperatively with compliant operators to manage legacy contaminants to ensure that investment in key infrastructure such as organics processing facilities is not put at risk.
6.60Ms Price of the Waste, Recycling Industry Association of Queensland explained the tension in balancing risk and dealing with emerging contaminants:
With recycled products, often there is the perception of a lot of risk. With environmental regulation, I'm not saying that a lot of that regulation is not a good idea, but sometimes environmental regulators don't see the bigger picture, or their standards simply evolve to presence or absence… Asregulators, we need to look at how we manage these emerging contaminants and what risks we're willing to take in order to get better outcomes for recycling.
6.61Mr Tegoni of SECOS Group Ltd gave evidence that PFAS contamination was an issue with some biodegradable materials but not certified compostable materials. He explained that:
There’s no regulation as to who wishes to claim their product is…’biodegradable’. There are companies that have produced biodegradable materials that people think are compostable. They think they’re certified but they’ve used PFAS. There is no PFAS in certified compostable materials.
6.62There is an inquiry underway by the Senate Select Committee on PFAS regarding the extent, regulation and management of PFAS. Amongst other things, the inquiry is exploring the health, environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts of PFAS and the effectiveness of current and proposed federal and state and territory regulatory frameworks in addressing the risks of PFAS. The select committee presented an interim report in March 2025 which focused on the impacts of living in a community affected by PFAS, with Wreck Bay as a case study. The select committee is due to present its final report to Parliament by 5 August 2025.
Food and organics
6.63The 2024 National Waste and Resource Recovery Report, prepared on behalf of DCCEEW, noted the increasing rates of garden organics (GO) and food organics and garden organics (FOGO) kerbside collection:
About 53% of Australians had access to a kerbside organics collection service in 2022-23. The proportion with access to FOGO, at 28%, now exceeds the proportion with GO only (24%). Organics services were pioneered in the south eastern portion of the mainland, but are now spreading across the country with high levels in Tas [Tasmania] and WA [Western Australia]. Collected material is generally composted, reducing waste to landfill, and enhancing soil in urban or agricultural markets.
6.64Further, data presented from 2022-23 indicates the tonnes of organics collected by local governments in kerbside bin services has 'exceeded that of dry recyclables since 2020-21' (dry recyclables includes, for example, mixed packaging and paper). A total of 1.80Mt of dry recyclables were collected in 2022-23, compared with 2.07 Mt of organics.
6.65FOGO collection services will increase in coming years. In early 2025, the NSW Government became the first jurisdiction to mandate FOGO collection services for households, by July 2030, and for businesses and institutions (in stages) from July 2026. The NSW Government will provide FOGO bins at premises like supermarkets, pubs, cafes, universities, schools, hotels and hospitals. The NSW Government explained:
With FOGO taking up to a third of household red bin capacity, this legislation will help take some pressure off landfill. It also takes us one step closer to a circular economy in NSW, where resources are recycled, reused and repurposed.
The new laws are backed by a $81 million FOGO Fund to go largely to Councils for infrastructure including bins, kitchen caddies and liners, contamination audits, community education programs and staffing, including a $9 million boost in funding.
6.66It is apparent that Australia will need to implement improved composting facilities to ensure that GO and FOGO collection can form part of the transition to the circular economy.
6.67For example, Mr Biddulph of Cleanaway explained that a real difference would be made to landfill volumes with the uptake of food and organics processing. However, he noted there were costs involved and that councils were 'very slow' to take this approach:
Implementing that fourth bin, processes and extra trucks is a massive cost for councils, so they're very slow on the uptake, but that would definitely make a difference to landfill capacity, and the contents of the landfill would start to be more inert than a putrescible landfill.
6.68SECOS Group submitted that there were 'significant benefits' to the development of 'compostable substitutes to conventional plastics', including reduced landfill costs to councils with compostable bags and kitchen caddies deployed in FOGO programs, and enabling more packaged food waste to be diverted to organic composters.
6.69Mr Tegoni, CEO of SECOS Group, suggested that two of the issues facing Australia—diverting food waste and replacing conventional plastic—were being tackled as two separate issues which could instead be considered together. Mr Tegoni argued that:
People who are trying to recycle plastic say, 'Well, compostable plastic is not part of that problem. We don't want compostable plastics. You can't recycle it. It's not meant to be recycled', so they will object to compostable plastics. People in organic waste streams haven't put their mind to the fact that what they're doing by using compostable plastic is also replacing conventional plastic at the same time. The two problems are intrinsically linked, but they're managed very separately in silos.
In regards to the organic recycling stream, 80 per cent of councils and composters use, and are happy to use and accept, compostable bin liners.
6.70Mr Tegoni called for the banning of the problem—plastics—and not the solution, which he saw as compostable products, including bioplastics.