Chapter 1
Introduction
Background to the inquiry
1.1
On 20 March 2008, the Senate referred the following matter to the
Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee for inquiry and report by August 2008:
Management of Australia's waste streams, with particular
reference to:
a) trends
in waste production in Australia across household, consumer, commercial and
industrial waste streams;
b) effectiveness
of existing strategies to reduce, recover or reuse waste from different waste
streams;
c) potential
new strategies to reduce, recover or reuse waste from different waste streams;
d) the
economic, environmental and social benefits and costs of such strategies;
e) policy
priorities to maximise the efficiency and efficacy of efforts to reduce,
recover or reuse waste from different waste streams; and
f) consideration
of the Drink Container Recycling Bill 2008.
1.2
The committee's terms of reference are reproduced in Appendix 1.
The committee's approach
1.3
In approaching this inquiry the committee was acutely cognisant of the
major waste report released in October 2006 by the Productivity Commission. The
committee was consistently referred to this work which tends to strongly
polarise views amongst stakeholders.
1.4
The Productivity Commission took a highly theoretical 'net benefit to the
community'[1]
approach. As a result, the report's recommendations tend to be theoretical in
nature and appear to contribute little to achieving that inquiry's stated
objective to 'identify policies that will enable Australia to address market
failures and externalities associated with the generation and disposal of
waste, including opportunities for resource use efficiency and recovery
throughout the product life‑cycle...'[2]
The committee notes that many of the Productivity Commission's recommendations
were rejected by the former government in July 2007.[3]
1.5
The committee has taken a different approach in its inquiry. It recognises
that there are several significant drivers, such as climate change and water
scarcity, that are changing the waste debate. In the committee's view waste
policy needs to address issues that are relevant to its own sphere and at the
same time, complement policies in other spheres particularly in relation to environmental
protection, sustainable agriculture, productivity as well as transport and
infrastructure.
1.6
Evidence before the committee suggests that such an approach would be strongly
supported by the community. The growing community awareness of, and support for,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving water efficiency are clear
examples. Indeed, a number of submissions from community groups and private
individuals highlighted the need for environmentally sustainable solutions to
waste which enable greater community engagement and commitment.
1.7
The committee acknowledges that waste management is a complex and
multilayered policy area. There are multiple sectors involved, multiple waste
streams from each sector, a range of treatment technologies, different
geographical and jurisdictional influences, as well as economic, environmental
and social considerations. All these complexities must be balanced when
assessing the various policy options that could be implemented. Needless to say
there are no 'silver-bullets'. Items of waste themselves are also becoming more
complex and toxic which only adds to the challenge of appropriate end-of-life management.
1.8
Despite heightened community, business and government awareness of waste
issues and impacts, the quantity of solid waste produced in Australia continues
to increase. Current generation is approaching 40 million tonnes per annum[4]
with growth rates exceeding increases in GDP.
1.9
While recycling rates have increased rapidly over the past decade, they
have not kept pace with the proliferation of overall waste generation,
resulting in an increasing amount of 'end-use' material being sent to landfill.
Although current waste data are far from perfect, estimates of disposal rates are
around 54 per cent while resource recover rates are around
46 per cent.[5]
1.10
Australia's waste management practices rely heavily on landfill which is
currently the main treatment option. The 'goods' side of the Australian economy
tends to involve a linear extraction-production-consumption-disposal model
rather than a closed-loop resource efficiency model, which leads to vast
quantities of used materials loosing their productive capacity within the
economy.
1.11
Current waste management practices produce a range of negative
environmental and social externalities that are excluded from waste pricing
models. Impacts include greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, waterway
degradation, human health and visual amenity. As a result, these negative costs
are borne across society in general rather than those involved in, and that
benefit from, a product's life‑cycle.
1.12
The committee notes that there is no national waste management strategy
to guide policy development. Although there are some similarities across
jurisdictions, there exist a range of inconsistencies which lead to a patchwork
of regulation, targets and programs. There was strong support for the
development of a national strategy amongst submitters.
1.13
The committee recommends the development of a national resource
efficiency strategy. It should be designed as a principle-based tool for all
participants in the waste sector. From the evidence the committee has
identified resource efficiency, the waste hierarchy, sustainability, and user
pays, cost-reflective pricing each of which should form the key guiding
principles for the national strategy. The committee recognises that these
principles are not absolutes. They must be balanced with each other as well as
other social, economic and environmental goals.
1.14
The committee acknowledges and shares the concerns raised by many
stakeholders regarding the lack of a national waste data system. Without this
information it is not possible to make evidence-based policy formulations nor informed
business decisions. The committee heard of the background to the Australian
Waste Database (AWD) which is now out of date. The committee would like to see
the AWD (re)established and adequately funded.
1.15
A common theme that flowed throughout the inquiry was the deficiencies
in infrastructure that inhibit recycling and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
initiatives. The committee recognises that without adequate infrastructure to
support alternatives to landfill and EPR initiatives, landfill is likely remain
the country's primary response to waste generation.
1.16
The committee took a keen interest in a number of key waste streams within
the waste sector including, organics, packaging, beverage containers, and e-waste.
1.17
Organic waste currently makes up approximately half of the 20 million
tonnes of waste going to landfill in Australia each year. Its current recycling
rate of 36 per cent is well below the national average for all waste
streams of 46 per cent. Organic material in landfill is responsible for nearly
all of the waste sector's greenhouse gas emissions. Although it represents a
relatively small component in national terms (around 3 per cent or 16.6 of Australia's
total 576 Mt CO2-e in 2006) there is enormous potential to
cost-effectively minimise these emissions.
1.18
Abatement of greenhouse gas emission through the recovery of gasses from
organics can be achieved through a variety of mechanisms such as large-scale
composting, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis to form biochar, and alternative
waste treatment. Diverting organic waste from landfill has a number of
co-benefits such as increasing crop yields, improving soil structure,
replenishing depleted organic carbon in soils, reducing chemical and fertiliser
inputs, reducing run-off and consequent soil erosion and waterway pollution. The
committee recommends that the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC)
recommend measures to reduce the quantities of organic material going into
landfill including utilising alternative waste technologies including
composting, and a cap and trade scheme.
1.19
There are other potential greenhouse abatement opportunities arising
from improved waste management and resource efficiency. Improving the level of
capture and flaring of methane landfill gas (which currently stands at only 26
per cent) will significantly reduce sectoral emissions and the committee makes
a recommendation in this regard. Increasing the recycling rate of high embodied
energy materials will also result in lower emissions. The committee recommends
that the Commonwealth Government calculates options to send a direct and
undiluted price signal to the market and publishes the greenhouse benefits of
recycling as part of its deliberations on the Carbon Pollution Reduction
Scheme.
1.20
The committee explored a number of existing and proposed Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR) schemes, either implemented or being considered by the EPHC.
In light of the emergence of national priorities including climate change and
water conservation, the committee recommends that the EPHC review the adequacy
and transparency of the EPHC waste framework, which it uses to identify matters
of national importance.
1.21
The committee considered various EPR schemes under consideration by the
EPHC. Noting the significant delays in establishing several such schemes, the committee
recommends that the EPHC expedite the establishment of Extended Producer
Responsibility arrangements for identified products of national significance.
1.22
Regarding the Drink Container Recycling Bill 2008 which is a specific
term of reference of this inquiry, the committee recommends that the
Environment Protection and Heritage Council work towards a national container deposit
system. As part of its review the committee recommends that the Environment
Protection and Heritage Council consider the South Australian model and the
Drink Container Recycling Bill 2008.
Conduct of the inquiry
1.23
The committee had been required to report by August 2008. On 17 June 2008 the Senate resolved to change the reporting date to 28 August 2008 and then on 27 August 2008, the Senate resolved to extend the reporting date to 3 September 2008.
1.24
The committee advertised the inquiry in The Australian on 1, 9
and 23 April and 7 May 2008, inviting submissions by 23 May 2008.
1.25
Ninety-one submissions were received, and these are listed at Appendix
1. Submissions were also posted on the committee's website to facilitate public
access. The committee held hearings in Adelaide on 30 June 2008, in Sydney on 2 July, Melbourne on 3 July 2008, and in Canberra on 4 July 2008. A list of the witnesses who appeared at the hearings is at Appendix 2, and copies of the
Hansard transcript are available through the internet at www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/eca_ctte/index.htm.
Acknowledgement
1.26
In the course of the inquiry, the committee received submissions from a
range of organisations and private individuals, often with supporting
documents, reports, and other references. Others gave freely of their time in
appearing before the committee at its public hearings, and in some cases,
undertook additional work to provide follow up information to the committee in
response to questions raised during the discussions. The committee wishes to
express its appreciation to all those who contributed to this inquiry.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page