The waste sector is hopeful the state government will release a waste policy next year ending a policy vacuum in this essential service sector.
WESTERN Australia’s waste industry claims the failure of successive state governments to develop a waste strategy is stymieing the development of an alternative waste treatment industry and ensuring the state’s landfill facilities remain in operation for the foreseeable future.
Australian Bureau of Statistics figures from June reveal that WA diverted only 28.2 per cent of refuse from landfills into waste recovery or reprocessing facilities in 2009-10, a bottom-of-the table performance that casts doubt on the state government’s ‘Towards Zero Landfill by 2020’ target.
Just what happens to household rubbish once it’s parked on the kerb for collection varies enormously depending on where you live; but household waste only accounts for about one third of the state’s total rubbish load with commercial, industrial, construction and demolition materials making up the other two thirds.
The government’s waste advisory body estimates WA produces about 8 million tonnes of rubbish every year, of which about 5.4mt ends up buried as landfill.
From a political perspective it’s one of those issues that’s ‘out of sight out of mind’, despite broad community support for alternatives to landfill.
This paradox has resulted in the local council sector leading the drive to develop alternative waste treatment in WA.
Several local council groups have invested in expensive rubbish treatment systems, such as the Western Metropolitan Regional Council’s $35 million DiCOM plant and the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council’s controversial $100 million regional resource recovery centre in Canning Vale.
These facilities divert as much as 75 per cent of household waste from landfill, but it’s a service that comes at a premium to the cost of landfill. And it’s this disparity that lies at the crux of the conflict over waste treatment in WA.
Waste management consultant John King has been waiting about three decades for the state governments to produce a definitive waste strategy for WA.
He dryly describes himself as a patient man, but his humour masks broad industry concern that the state government lacks genuine commitment to the waste sector.
The policy void has left regional councils to lead and fund the alternative waste treatment sector in this state, but it also affects planning issues.
This is an area where Mr King said the government could play an important role.
“The siting of waste facilities is a huge issue, it’s extremely expensive and it’s extremely controversial,” Mr King said.
“Waste management is treated totally differently to other essential services like waste water.
“You would never find a situation where a state minister would say to the Water Corp, ‘We know you need a waste water treatment plant but whether you put it in the best site or not is going to be determined by the local community’.
“That’s what they do with waste treatment facilities ... it’s very hard work getting sites approved for waste facilities and that comment relates to local government as well as the private sector.’’
He said a waste policy would also be a major determinant in what waste treatment technologies were developed in WA. But he didn’t believe the state government needed to play a role in prescribing the sort of plants that were built.
Mr King said WA was still many decades away from significantly reducing, let alone eliminating the waste load going to landfill.
“It’s still by far the predominant means of disposal and I can’t see that changing. I think we need to be talking about having landfill capacity for the normal planning horizons of 40 year,” he said
Many of the alternative waste treatment plants still produce by-products that have to go into landfill.
In the case of Mindarie Regional Council’s resource recovery facility in Neerabup, the residue accounts for as much as 50 per cent of the waste feed that goes into the plant.
In the future this residue could be processed by some of the new generation waste-to-energy technologies proposed for WA but these plants – such as the $400 million operation proposed by Phoenix Energy for the industrial strip at Kwinana – come with big price tags and long construction schedules.
The newly appointed head of WA’s waste advisory body, Peter Fitzpatrick, is more focused on some of the “low-hanging fruit” in the waste treatment cycle, such as the potential for industrial or demolition waste to be converted into materials for new roads.
But as Waste Authority chair, Mr Fitzpatrick is also adamant the state needs a concrete policy with measurable targets if it’s to make any inroads into decreasing the tonnage going into the ground.
He said the Waste Authority had already delivered a strategy to the state government and it was now a question of garnering the support of cabinet.
Industry players suggest the government is grappling with the contentious issue of the landfill levy, which is believed to be one of the reasons for delays in getting the policy in front of cabinet.
Mr Fitzpatrick said he was optimistic the strategy would get the tick from government in January and that there was the political will to address this long-running policy void.
The imminent introduction of the carbon tax is likely to increase pressure on the state government to outline its strategy and provide certainty for councils and the private sector to develop business plans of their own.
“The fact that 50 per cent of the landfill is taken up by construction and demolition waste is not acceptable,” Mr Fitzpatrick said.
“We have already reached an in-principle agreement with Main Roads to use landfill (materials) in some road building and car parks for local government.”
WA has the highest rate of construction and demolition waste going to landfill in Australia and this is partly a reflection of the state’s low landfill levy.
And while he didn’t want to get drawn into a discussion about the landfill levy and how it was spent, Mr Fitzpatrick acknowledged it was central to the development of an alternative waste industry in WA.
“My instincts tell me there will need to be some adjustment to create the appropriate industries around construction and demolition waste,” Mr Fitzpatrick said.
“There is an opportunity there … we have to encourage greater reuse and recycling of construction and demolition waste if we are going to have any form of sustainable landfill on the coastal plain.
“As the current ones start to fill it’s difficult to find land that’s suitably isolated, and there are costs associated with that because you have fuel costs and a carbon tax coming in.”
The levy and the allocation of the monies raised through it are two of the key flash points in the disharmony between the regional metropolitan councils and the state government.
Set up in the early 1990s, WA’s five regional councils are alliances of Perth metropolitan local governments for managing municipal waste.
Ron Norris is the chair of the WMRC as well as the forum of regional councils, a peak body for the five councils.
The western metropolitan, southern metropolitan, and Mindarie regional councils have developed alternative waste treatment plants, which process waste at a considerably higher cost than landfill.
But it’s the state government’s use of the landfill levy funds that really sticks in the regional councils’ craw. The levy was increased four-fold by the Barnett government in 2009 from $7/tonne to $28/t, but of those funds only 25 per cent are directed into the waste and resource recovery fund, which are then available to the regional councils for waste activities.
The remaining 75 per cent is swallowed up by consolidated revenue.
Mr Norris lashed out at the government and its willingness to let local councils shoulder the entire cost of diverting waste from landfill.
“One of the problems we have in this industry is it’s frightfully sexy for five minutes but we are left to deal with the ongoing economic reality,” Mr Norris said.
“Most of the regional councils are well and truly over the phase of trying to be nice about this … and nurse the government towards a responsible position.
“And at the present time the government seems content for that cost to be borne by the regional councils.”
Environment Minister Bill Marmion was unwilling to discuss the waste strategy, other than to say the draft from the Waste Authority included targets for waste reductions, which were “currently being considered by government”.
