HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-09-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Environment, Resources and Development Committee: Recycling Industry

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (11:02): By leave, on behalf of the Morphett I move:

That the fourth report of the committee, on the Inquiry into the Recycling Industry, be noted.

On 13 May 2019, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee resolved to conduct an inquiry into whether a current crisis in waste management exists in South Australia as a result, at least in part, of China's National Sword policy. The China National Sword policy stated that China would no longer be importing certain kinds of solid waste from other countries, including Australia.

Indonesia and Malaysia shortly thereafter indicated they would be adopting similar policy positions. The committee sought to engage with the South Australian waste management and resource recovery industry and other stakeholders to better understand the impacts of China's National Sword policy and, as such, the committee considered a wide range of evidence from 54 submissions and 39 witnesses. The committee also visited waste management resource recovery sites in the northern and north-western metropolitan areas, conducted regional visits to Whyalla and the South-East, and the committee held public hearings in Adelaide, Whyalla, Mount Gambier and Millicent.

When the committee resolved to commence this inquiry, the Australian government and governments from other jurisdictions, including South Australia, were already responding to the challenges represented by China's ban on the importation of waste. Parliamentary inquiries have commenced in Victoria and in the Senate, with a further Senate inquiry launched in October 2019. A National Waste Policy was published in 2018, and a National Waste Action Plan was released in 2019 to help meet the targets in the National Waste Policy.

A meeting of environment ministers in 2019 also committed to a ban on some types of waste being exported. At a local level, the South Australian government commenced a review of the South Australian container deposit scheme, released for consultation—and has now introduced—its Single-use and Other Plastics Products (Waste Avoidance) Bill 2019, published an Energy from Waste discussion paper, and released for consultation its draft waste strategy for 2020-25.

The committee was heartened to note that governments across all jurisdictions were keen to address legislative and policy challenges that have been facing the industry for many years and that the commonwealth was taking the lead in coordinating a national approach through the meeting of environment ministers. The committee found, as a result of its inquiry, that there was desire from stakeholders to decouple the state from external markets and to provide self-sufficiency for future generations.

A waste management and resource recovery industry based on a circular economy model was widely supported by submitters and witnesses. The committee found it was important that any such transition be supported by economic and legislative tools to encourage best practice, strategic planning and action that is underpinned by better knowledge about product and packaging flows. The committee also found it was important to consider energy from waste in the context of a circular economy model as well as the best possible use for waste. The committee found that submitters and witnesses all recommended that government policy focused on the creation of local markets for recyclable and recycled products.

In late 2019 and early 2020, this inquiry's momentum was interrupted dramatically as Australia experienced severe bushfires in every state and territory except the Northern Territory, with South Australia experiencing bushfires throughout many parts of the state. The trauma of these bushfires was closely followed by the COVID-19 global pandemic and the resulting socio-economic restrictions.

Local and state government resources have, quite rightly, been put towards dealing with these unanticipated and traumatic events. This has meant that the committee's findings and recommendations for the industry, although important, must now be viewed through the lens of a post bushfire and pandemic recovery. COVID-19 has also revealed the challenges associated with fragile global supply chain and business models, making some of the committee's recommended improvements to the legislative and policy environment to support the domestic waste management and resource recovery industry even more pertinent.

The committee's findings, such as moving the South Australian economy towards a circular model for waste management, are well supported by stakeholders, and are consistent with a post COVID-19 recovery plan for South Australia. Success for the waste management and resource recovery industry is, however, likely to be contingent upon a collaboratively developed statewide strategy and action plan that is embedded within nationally agreed objectives. The committee makes 16 recommendations in this report, which I believe will address many of the issues raised by submitters and witnesses.

I wish to thank all the stakeholders who gave their time to assist the committee with this inquiry. I also wish to thank current and former members of the committee for their contributions to this report: Mr Adrian Pederick MP and Mr Stephen Patterson MP, former presiding members of the committee; Mr Tony Piccolo MP; Mr Michael Brown MP; the Hon. John Dawkins MLC; the Hon. Tung Ngo MLC; the Hon. Dennis Hood MLC; and the Hon. Mark Parnell MLC. I would also really like to thank the committee staff, Ms Joanne Fleer and Dr Merry Brown, for their assistance.

I would like to finish up with a couple of things regarding this inquiry. The inquiry was, exactly as I have explained, about the China Sword policy and other countries dealing with Australia's waste. You would have to ask, after China and other countries refused to take on a lot of Australia's recycling waste, what was to happen to it.

The inquiry was probably only 12 months down the road from the China Sword policy, and we now find ourselves about two years down. The government has implemented a further tax on landfill, first, obviously, to create some revenue, which goes towards coastal erosion issues up and down the South Australian coast. However, the intent was also to help manage and encourage further recycling rather than seeing that waste go to landfill.

We heard that recycling and landfill play an important role. In other words, recyclers do require landfill. We heard on our visits and through submissions that when recycling is taken and used, and obviously processed, two issues arise: not all product that comes in for recycling can be used, so there is a waste component, and then the number one foundation from beyond that is to find a worthy and economical product to then take it further to use. In fact, we saw at least two cases where a product was being recycled into plastic pellets with no commercial value, with no market and nowhere to go. This is an example of where further investigation into technology, science and development needs to occur.

On the other side of that, there is also a product from recycling. We saw that particularly in the hard rubbish of construction recycling, where it was alluded to that at least 20 to 40 per cent of their product had to still go to landfill. With landfill being so expensive, the whole recycling process becomes expensive, because that is a cost. Even though they are using 60 to 80 per cent towards recycling to be re-used later on for other products, it still had to go to landfill. Landfill is expensive. It incurs freight and certainly causes some massive issues for recycling, as we heard.

I come back to my regional experience in looking after the regional area of MacKillop. We also went to Whyalla and right down to Mount Gambier. We saw recycling in Mount Gambier and we saw landfill down in Mount Gambier. The landfill site in Mount Gambier is one of the most expensive landfill sites in South Australia—I will not say Australia because I do not know that. One of the reasons is that Mount Gambier has a magnificent underground watertable, and it needs protecting. According to legislation, rules and the EPA, to protect the underground water system the landfill site needs to be protected by the largest amounts of clay of any landfill site.

This means that Mount Gambier and the Wattle Range Council, I believe, use the Mount Gambier landfill site, but no other councils do. I imagine the Naracoorte Lucindale Council, Kingston council, Robe council and the Coorong council, I would imagine, would all be going towards the Murray Bridge landfill site because it is more affordable. Obviously, when you start moving landfill and rubbish like that a great distance transport becomes a massive issue for regions, and we did hear that on a number of occasions, even at the metal recycling site at the Whyalla Steelworks. Obviously, freight is a major component of getting that metal to Whyalla for recycling. It all plays a role. It was not just steel but it was also nonferrous metals and all the other things that they try to re-use in different ways.

It was very eye-opening to go to the Whyalla Steelworks. Some huge technology is there, but there are also some very fundamental, basic starting foundations. In other words, it is just beginning. One would hope that with technology, investment and obviously the better use of and the more throughput we can get into those sorts of recycling businesses, as happens at Whyalla, the better they will be, not only on a local level and a national level but on a world level, because they have to compete. When they have that finished product for the market, they will be competing on the world market for steel and nonferrous metals.

One thing that also came into play when we talked about the recycling of light metals is that there is a world market for iron ore, there is a world market for scrap and there is a world market for recycled product, and our businesses in South Australia have to compete with those as well.

Coming back to our regions and the other issues about recycling, we did go down to see Van Schaik's—a massive recycling business for organic matter. We heard that the forestry industry uses Van Schaik's a significant amount. Van Schaik's are crying out for product from the forestry industry. The forestry industry are torn. I know of at least two mills, possibly three, where they use a lot of their own waste product for reproducing energy and creating heat and steam for drying. We also saw at the Mount Gambier site where they used to make electricity from wood waste. Van Schaik's are crying out for as much forestry waste product as possible, plus they also receive all the local government waste recycling from green waste. We are now seeing a lot more food waste.

Another thing that came into recycling was the education required for recycling to work well. It was pointed out that in some suburbs in Adelaide (I do not need to name them) recycling is so bad that they can barely use it because of the lack of cooperation and education that exists in relation to the use of bins, the colour of the bins and what should be going in them. It is just not working, and recycling becomes too expensive.

There are a couple of things I will highlight, and I come back to my initial point about, first of all, regional areas. They are going to suffer transport costs. They are going to suffer with small quantities, the tyranny of great distances and the fact it then has to go on and be of value. The second point I will make is that we have to have a greater level of education, cooperation and collaboration between our community members, local government, state government, perhaps even federal government, with businesses, making sure recycling works on all fronts. When it does not work, we certainly see how it does not take much to break the camel's back.

It does not take much to make recycling too expensive to carry out, and when that happens the first thing looked at is it goes straight into landfill. So there are a number of barriers to work through, and the number one barrier that really stood out most of all is that it has to be economically achievable. There is no point in trying to do all this if it breaks the budget and breaks the cost of trying to achieve what we are trying to achieve with recycling and waste and creating a circular economy, where we try to turn as much as possible of what we buy, use and waste into recycled product.

There is a lot to be gained. It is only early days. I thank all the members who were on this committee for their participation. We got on well. We were well led, as I have already said, by the two presiding officers, Mr Adrian Pederick and, later, Mr Stephen Patterson. We got on very well. This was a very busy committee that looked at this recycling industry. I was very pleased to participate, and I think there are many more outcomes that are going to be positive in the future.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (11:17): I rise to support this Environment, Resources and Development Committee report because a sustainable environment is a key concern for my constituents young and old. As one Golden Grove High School student Bella Walden said on her poster that she gave to me, 'The earth is not recyclable, so we must save the one we have.' I am so very proud our Marshall Liberal government's plan is delivering in a practical and sustainable way for our environment.

This poster from Bella is now proudly displayed in my electorate office, and her picture is on the front of my cards that go out to constituents because this is such an important message. I am also very proud in my local electorate of the many constituents who are making good use of their rubbish and adhering to the Which Bin activities. South Australia is leading the nation on tackling climate change and we are leading the nation on renewable energy with the most ambitious plan set to slash emissions. This week we are the first state to ban single-use plastics. This is a credit to the leadership of our Minister for Environment and every member in this house who supported this legislation.

The Marshall Liberal government is committed to South Australia continuing to be the national leader in recycling and resource recovery. We see this as a key plank of the government's environmental agenda, which is focused on delivering practical, on-the-ground environmental outcomes. As South Australians, we have such a proud history of being the national leader when it comes to waste management. In 1977, we were the first state or territory to introduce the container deposit scheme. In 2017-18, we recovered almost 603 million containers—that is 42,913 tonnes—for recycling.

Once again leading the nation, in 2009 South Australia became the first state or territory to ban lightweight plastic bags from supermarket checkouts, and now we are the first state to ban single-use plastics. This deliverable means that on commencement of the legislation single-use plastic straws, cutlery and drink stirrers will be banned from sale, supply or distribution, and 12 months from the commencement date the distribution of expanded polystyrene cups, bowls, plates, clamshell containers and oxo degradable plastic products will then be prohibited. There will be further analysis and consultation on takeaway coffee cups, plastic bags another takeaway food service items.

On 13 May 2019, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee resolved to conduct an inquiry into whether the current crisis in waste management exists in South Australia as a result, at least in part, of China's National Sword policy. The committee considered a wide range of evidence. I commend the committee, which visited waste management and resource recovery sites in the northern and north-western metropolitan area and conducted regional visits to Whyalla and the South-East.

In 2017, China announced to the World Trade Organisation that it would no longer be accepting certain kinds of solid waste, including plastic waste, unsorted wastepaper and waste textile materials. Other Asian countries indicated that they would be adopting a similar position. Australia's response to the bans on waste exports has been encapsulated in the National Waste Policy 2018 and the subsequent action plan 2019.

In recognition of China's restrictions on importing recyclables, the state government (Green Industries SA) released a $12.4 million package for local government and the resource recovery industry. This package was intended to be directed towards improving sorting and processing and enabling industry investment in remanufacture. Challenges and opportunities existed prior to China's National Sword policy, but this policy has helped highlight a community desire for reform within the waste management and resource recovery industry.

Submitters provided many possible solutions to the issues and challenges as they saw them. Potential solutions tended towards global and transformative change, such as shifting the state towards an industry based on the circular economy model, while other solutions were behavioural, such as increased education to reduce contamination. Increased government transparency and accountability and certainty and clarity for industry were also important to stakeholders. Economic and legislative tools were suggested to encourage best practice in product stewardship and to minimise production of non-recyclable or hard to recycle products.

The committee also heard that better and more equitable risk-sharing partnerships and collaboration at regional levels will result in a more level playing field. An issue that was important to all councils and local government associations was the state government announcement of an increase in solid waste levies for the 2019-20 budget. Councils and LGAs called for increased transparency and accountability for expenditure of solid waste levies. Overwhelmingly, there was a desire to decouple the state from external markets and to provide self-sufficiency for future generations.

A waste management and resource recovery industry based on a circular economy model was widely supported. It was important that any such transition be supported by economic and legislative tools to encourage best practice and strategic planning and action that is underpinned by better knowledge about product and packaging flows. It was important to consider energy from waste in the context of a circular economy model and also to consider the best possible use for waste. Finally, submitters and witnesses all recommended that government policy focuses on the creation of local markets for recyclable and recycled products.

I thank the ERD Committee, chaired by the member for Morphett, for their work on this most important environmental topic, and our Minister for Environment for his ongoing work to introduce change which continues to put South Australia in a leadership position with regard to environmental strategy and delivering real change for South Australia. I thank the 54 people and groups who made submissions, and the 39 witnesses. I commend the report and its recommendations to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:24): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have not had the opportunity yet, but I congratulate you on rising to that esteemed position in the chair. I know that you are doing and will do a fantastic job for the parliament in this state.

Today, I rise in regard to the fourth report of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee's inquiry into the recycling industry. I was very proud, as the initial chair in regard to this inquiry, to work with the committee to get this inquiry underway. We looked at many and varied parts of the recycling and waste industry to investigate how they could be more efficient and how more waste could be recycled. The China Sword policy obviously made not just South Australia but Australia and other countries focus on what they are doing in regard to exporting waste offshore.

Waste is a huge issue in society. In the visits we went on, we saw the ingenuity exemplified by the creation of jobs and industries around recycling and waste management, because there are many opportunities. Part of that opportunity comes about because of the obvious cost of dumping rubbish. The cost is amplified the closer you get to Adelaide into more urban areas, but you hear of quotes of $130 for a 6 x 4 trailer load of rubbish—6 x 4 in the old language, whatever that is in metres. That is a very expensive way to get rid of rubbish, so recycling is extremely important.

Those charges for waste can be quite counterproductive. Several years ago, we were holidaying at Geelong and talking to some families from Sunshine in Victoria, where the famous Massey Ferguson 585 and 587 headers were produced, apart from others. They were very famous in their day. But in this area at the time, and this was several years ago now, it cost $100 to dump a mattress, so they all ended up on the side of the road. People here have had issues where rubbish has been illegally dumped, whether it is on the way to a dump or somewhere else.

I guess it also relates to hard rubbish collection, which used to be a chance to go shopping for hard rubbish. You could drive down the road, and it depended on how big a vehicle you had as to how much shopping you did. One of my boys was very enterprising and used to do up pushbikes that he found and he would resell them. He had quite an industry going, recycling—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Regularly called 'Mitre 11'.

Mr PEDERICK: 'Mitre 11'—I like that from the Minister for Energy and Mining. They say one person's trash is another person's treasure and that is certainly true. Rules have been tightened up around that. It used to be quite novel, especially in large towns or in urban areas, where you could drive up and down for several weeks. I can understand why they have tightened it up because there are just rows and rows of hard rubbish. But it was a bit of a shopping frenzy. I think it is technically illegal to pick up hard rubbish.

There is so much innovative work being done, and I look at companies like Peats Soil and Jeffries, to name a couple in South Australia. Peter Wadewitz was in this place last night. As I have indicated on my register of interests—and I know he is over 18, but I put it down anyway—my eldest son does two days a week for Peats Soil out at Brinkley near Langhorne Creek. They have a major composting activity out there. They have contracts with a wide range of people. I know they deal with the Zoo and with a whole range of dead animals and plant produce that can all be recycled into compost.

Also in my electorate, up Kanmantoo-Callington way, I acknowledge Neutrog and their expansion plans. I am trying to think of their most famous manure, which they sell in a bag. I cannot think of it offhand, but they are doing very well. All these companies, especially on the organic side of things, are finding ways to get material, especially organic waste—obviously animal waste, dead animals, etc.—and turn it back into something that can promote life in gardens and farms. I know that they were looking at pellet production for fertiliser at Peats Soil. Neutrog have a vast range of products. These are industries that are only going to grow in the future. From memory, I think the product from Neutrog is called Whoflungdung.

We also saw inorganic material, as the member for MacKillop mentioned in his contribution. I note that we went to the Fulton Hogan yard in Dry Creek. My brother Chris works there, under contract with another company under Fulton Hogan, in recycling bitumen. It is great work. It causes the crusher a fair bit of grief, but obviously with the 1,000 kilometres of roadworks that we are doing as a government throughout this state that company is very busy recycling bitumen.

It is only when you drive around the urban areas, as you do when we are here on sitting weeks, that you realise how much bitumen gets chewed up at night here in the city when roadworks are done so that they are not being done during peak hours. That is great work, and the odd few loads that cannot be milled for whatever reason—it could be out of spec for the bitumen recycling—can be sold for a pretty good rate. I know that a lot of farmers can put it in their driveways or gateway entrances, so it can all be used in a recycled manner. As the member for MacKillop indicated, a lot of the concrete, steel and building materials used in construction are re-used time and time again. We saw this right around the state.

It was great to visit Whyalla and see the work they are doing at the steelworks, as well as seeing Peats Soil's new yard in Whyalla. Down at Millicent and Mount Gambier, we saw a company in Robe (the member for MacKillop will help me with the name) that is very innovative in what it is doing with recycling plastic bread tags. It is doing fantastic work. Anything, even a bread tag, can be recycled. I think a few years ago the Meningie Area School did a project where they collected a million bread tags so that students could see what a million of something looked like. That would have been an effort in itself.

An honourable member: That's a lot of bread.

Mr PEDERICK: It is a lot of bread. What we saw in the main is that efforts need to step up. There is a vast range of recommendations, but one thing that really stood out was a recommendation from one of the biggest recyclers at Mount Gambier. I know that we do recycling with the coloured bins and that it does get a bit confusing the more coloured bins we get, but his biggest issue was the amount of broken glass from wine bottles that ends up with the paper in the yellow bins. Glass can be recycled, so it is a lot better if you take your wine bottles or other bottles to the bottle collection depots, of which there are many here because of our world-class container deposit legislation in this state. It gives a lot better outcome for the re-usable glass, instead of it contaminating the paper waste.

In the last few seconds, I would like to commend everyone on the committee and everyone in the industry for their work in this space. When really you look at it, you can recycle just about everything. I commend everyone's work in the field.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (11:34): Firstly, may I congratulate you on your appointment as the Speaker of the house. This is the first day I have been able to speak in the house since your appointment. Congratulations and all the best.

It has been a pleasure to be a part of this environmental report. I thank the member for King for her contribution. She spoke about climate change, global warming, carbon and all of those things that I imagine are very dear to her heart, and also the constituents of King and other Adelaide residents.

Where I come from down in the country, those sorts of things do play a part in our psyche and thinking, but there are probably other things at play. With the tyranny of distance and living in a regional area where we are sparse and few in population compared with city centres, sometimes those things are not as high on the priority list as they are for some country members.

I would also like to thank the member for Hammond for his contribution and for both speaking to this report and supporting it and also his guidance as Presiding Officer of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. We made16 recommendations. They are all there to be noted for the parliament to work through if it chooses.

I would like to highlight two things that are noted in the committee's recommendations and findings. Energy from waste is one of those opportunities, if recycling does not work and if it does not have any commercial value, and it cannot or it does not at this stage in the cycle and development of recycling, that we as a committee considered; that is what Japan, Europe and some of the Norwegian countries are doing in turning waste into heat and energy.

It is a high-heat type of incineration. It has low-pollution elements to it. Yes, there would be a carbon aspect to it and, yes, it would not be the purest way of using and recycling waste but it certainly may play a role in the future. I raise this because there is a large turbine and boiler in Mount Gambier that runs off a sawmill. The turbine has not worked now—and I am going to have a guess, and the member for Hammond may correct me—for at least 10 years, since the turbine got out of control and nearly blew up the whole station. This turbine used to produce power for the City of Mount Gambier. It used to run on woodchip and waste.

The boiler now only produces steam and heat to dry timber for this mill. If you look at the way in which it works—and I think it was developed in the fifties and sixties, maybe even the forties—it uses woodchip waste, but if we could use other waste forms like plastics and other products that are hard to recycle in the regional areas and turn it into energy, it might be a great thing. Without speaking any further, I am happy to move the fourth report of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee and commend all the recommendations to the house.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT