Campbelltown City Council and Fairfield City Council should:

1. better measure, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness of their activities in improving residents waste sorting habits, in order to make adjustments as needed 
    
2. ensure all new buildings have adequate and appropriate waste storage facilities, to make it easy for residents to sort their waste properly
    
3. obtain more information on the costs of other viable options for waste collection, transportation, processing and disposal, in order to determine if there is a need to change existing arrangements.

Waste is any discarded item, including those that have the capacity to be recycled, re used or recovered.

Municipal waste is waste from households and local government operations. This includes waste placed at the kerbside, street sweeping, council engineering works and public council bins. Domestic waste is all waste generated by households and comprises 95 per cent of all municipal solid waste.
 

The Essential Service Act 1988 No 41, requires councils to provide waste management services to their residents. Waste management is one of the major services provided by councils. In New South Wales councils manage over 3.5 million tonnes of waste generated by residents each year. Local councils collect domestic waste through kerbside services, kerbside bulk waste collection and at council drop off facilities. Of these, kerbside services collect the most domestic waste.

Exhibit 2 shows the role councils play in managing domestic kerbside waste services.

The NSW Government regulates the transportation, collection, treatment, storage and disposal of waste. It is responsible for the state wide policies and programs designed to reduce waste, increase recycling and improve community waste disposal behaviours. The two key State government agencies involved are the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and Department of Planning and Environment (DPE). The EPA is primarily responsible for waste regulation and the DPE is responsible for land use planning in New South Wales and is a consent authority for major waste infrastructure such as processing facilities and landfills for New South Wales.

The NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014–21 is a framework for waste management. It includes six key results areas for targeted actions:

• avoid and reduce the generation of waste
• increase recycling
• divert waste from landfill
• manage problem waste better
• reduce litter
• reduce illegal dumping.

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy is guided by a waste hierarchy which underpins the objectives of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001. The hierarchy helps focus attention and effort on activities that achieve the greatest efficiencies in cost, time and resources. Exhibit 3 shows the order of preferred approaches to achieve efficient resource use.

The NSW Government uses several methods to encourage stakeholders to divert waste from landfill, the key driver being a levy that applies to all waste disposed of in landfills within the leviable area. The levy increases each year to provide a financial incentive that makes alternatives, including recovery and recycling programs, more attractive than disposing of waste into landfill.

In 2018–19, the waste levy in the Sydney metropolitan area was the highest in Australia. Over the past ten years, the levy has increased by 140 per cent, from $58.80 per tonne in 2009–10 to $141.20 per tonne in 2018–19. Exhibit 4 shows the increase in the Sydney metropolitan waste levy over the last ten years.

The Waste Less, Recycle More initiative supports the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy. The initiative aims to provide $802 million over the period 2013–21 from waste levy revenue to grants and programs that support investment in recycling infrastructure, encourage innovation, improve recycling behaviour, develop new markets for recycled materials and tackle littering and illegal dumping.

EPA data indicates that councils received $112 million of the $292 million spent through the initiative up to July 2016.

Waste management facilities generally comprise transfer stations, resource recovery facilities and landfills.

Transfer stations are used for collecting and transferring waste materials or resources. They receive, sort, compact, temporarily store and distribute waste, and load and unload waste to and from road or rail transport.

Resource recovery facilities are designed to sort and process discarded materials using various mechanical, biological and thermal technologies. They include:

• alternative waste treatment facilities
• garden organics processing facilities
• material recovery facilities.

Landfills are sites that bury waste. Regulated landfills that accept household waste must be designed to prevent pollution of surrounding groundwater. They must be located a safe distance from residential and commercial areas to minimise the effects of noise and odour.

This audit assessed how effectively and economically Campbelltown City Council and Fairfield City Council are managing domestic kerbside waste collection, transportation and processing. In making this assessment, the audit examined whether:

• Councils’ activities lead to residents putting recyclable materials into correct recycling bins
• Councils have effective and economical arrangements to collect, transport and process domestic kerbside waste to maximise recycling rates and minimise costs
• Councils are increasing the domestic kerbside recycling rate and meeting their targets.

The audit focused on domestic kerbside services.

The responses of the Councils to the audit report are at Appendix one. Further information on the audit scope and criteria is at Appendix two.

Both Councils have adopted the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy targets. 

In line with the State target, waste generated per person in both Councils was marginally lower in 2017–18 than in 2013–14. 

However, there is a large gap between their recycling rates and the target.

Waste generated per person within both Council areas is marginally lower than in 2013–14

The NSW Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Strategy has a target to avoid and reduce the amount of waste generated per person by 2021–22.
Total waste generated per person is reducing at both Councils. 

Between 2013–14 and 2017–18, Campbelltown Council’s waste generation per person reduced by four per cent, from 8.1 to 7.7 kilograms per person per week. This includes waste collected through council clean ups. Over the same period, total kerbside bin collection reduced by 12 per cent, from 7.4 to 6.6 kilograms per person per week. Exhibit 5 shows domestic waste generated per person at Campbelltown Council.

There is a large gap between the Councils’ recycling rates and the State target

The NSW Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Strategy has targets to increase municipal solid waste recycling rates to 70 per cent and waste diverted from landfill to 75 per cent by 2021–22.

The Strategy defines the recycling rate as the proportion of all materials recycled in a given year (measured in tonnes) compared with the sum of waste generated in the same year. Recycling excludes recovery of energy from waste processes.

Over the last five years, recycling rates at:

• Campbelltown Council reduced by four per cent 
• Fairfield Council increased by one per cent. 

In 2017–18, recycling rates in Campbelltown and Fairfield local government areas were 42 per cent and 14 per cent respectively.

Recycling rate data used in this report was obtained from Council records of verified weighbridge data provided by operators and data provided by processing facilities. Data on recycling rates has limitations. While data on waste generated is specific and reliable, data on waste recycling is not specific and less reliable. Specific data on the amount of waste recycled is not collected. The closest proxy is the recovery rate. Processing facilities measure this rate and councils have no way of assuring it is accurate. This rate is for the whole facility. It is not specific to individual councils because facilities combine waste from several councils before processing it. 

Exhibit 7 shows recycling rates in Campbelltown and Fairfield Councils against the State target.

Both Councils undertake activities to encourage residents to minimise waste and put items in the correct bins. These activities are in line with EPA guidelines, and include requiring adequate waste facilities (e.g. bin storage and disposal chutes) in new multi unit dwellings, providing bin collection systems (size, number and type of bins), providing financial incentives for residents to minimise waste, and educating residents on how to sort waste. 

On average, residents in both Councils each generated slightly less waste in 2017–18 than in 2013–14. However, neither Council can show it is effectively ensuring residents put their waste into the correct bins. Fairfield Council’s waste audits show residents are not sorting their waste as well as they did in 2015. Campbelltown Council does not monitor residents' waste sorting habits.

In line with the EPA guidance, Fairfield Council conducts some targeted education for residents based on its waste audit and bin inspection results. This education could be more effective if the Council collected more detailed information. Campbelltown Council does not conduct targeted education or collect information on residents’ waste sorting habits. 

Neither Council evaluates the overall success of their initiatives to encourage residents to reduce and sort waste to determine what changes are needed to improve waste sorting by residents.

Neither Council’s Local Environmental Plan treats waste collection as an essential service. This inhibits their ability to ensure new developments include well designed waste storage facilities.

The 2018 Senate Inquiry into the waste and recycling industry in Australia commented that waste services are likely to be cheaper and more effective if waste is minimised in the first instance and residents put their waste into the correct bins. 

Neither Council can show it is effective in ensuring residents put waste into the correct bins

Fairfield Council’s waste audits show residents are not sorting their waste as well as they did in 2015. The results of its last two waste audits show that between 2015 and 2017:

• the weight of dry recyclables in red-lid bins fell by 57 per cent, from 5.0 to 2.1 kilograms
• the contamination rate in yellow-lid bins increased three per cent, from 19 to 22 per cent
• the proportion of dwellings that included material in plastic bags in yellow-lid bins increased by 65 per cent, from 13 to 78 per cent.

Campbelltown Council does not have current and comprehensive data on how effectively residents sort their waste, because it does not conduct waste audits. In 2018, the Council conducted a visual inspection of garden organics delivered to the processing facility. The Council advised that the collected information helped the Council to establish a baseline and identify areas that need targeted intervention to reduce the level of contamination for garden organics.

Neither Council can demonstrate the success of its efforts to improve residents’ waste sorting habits

Neither Council routinely evaluates efforts to change behaviour or sets measurable, outcome focused criteria to evaluate their overall performance. As a result, they do not know which initiatives work, which do not and why.  

Fairfield Council conducts waste audits, but Campbelltown does not

Over the last five years, Fairfield Council conducted three waste audits.

The EPA encourages all councils to perform waste audits as part of routine monitoring and evaluation of kerbside service. Exhibit 8 shows the EPA’s requirements for conducting waste audits.

Domestic waste audits help councils to:

• understand the communities' waste disposal habits
• identify areas with excessive levels of contamination and the prevailing contaminants
• develop strategies to increase and improve waste sorting
• assess changes associated with the introduction of new programs and initiatives.

Fairfield Council’s waste audits provide information on waste composition by bin type, contamination levels, prevailing contaminates and areas with a high level of contamination in dry recyclables.

Campbelltown Council has not conducted regular waste audits in the last five years. The Council advised that it cannot justify the cost of the audits, because contamination levels have no bearing on the price they pay for processing.

Campbelltown Council has not done any bin inspections over the past five years, and Fairfield limits inspections to multi unit dwellings

Experts regard bin inspections and tagging programs that use a combination of information, incentives and enforcement to reduce contamination and increase resource recovery as good practice. Ideally, these activities should supplement information collected in waste audits. Exhibit 9 shows the bin inspection and tagging process.

Bin inspections enable councils to collect more information on residents’ behaviours across the broader local government area. Bin tagging provides direct feedback to households on the contents of their residual waste, dry recyclables and garden organics bins.

Fairfield Council does not have a comprehensive bin inspection program, but regularly inspects yellow-lid bins in multiple unit dwellings. Waste audits identified these had higher levels of contamination than single dwellings.

Campbelltown Council has not conducted bin inspections in the last five years. 

Exhibit 10 shows kerbside bin inspection and tagging at Fairfield Council.

Both Councils use programs and media to educate residents on how to minimise and sort waste

According to the EPA, educating residents to place items in the correct bins helps maximise recycling and minimise contamination. Contamination can be due to residents not understanding what is and is not recyclable. 

Both Councils run education programs that include participating in community events, sponsoring community workshops and running school activities. They provide messages through a range of media, including their websites, Twitter, Instagram, printed materials and newspapers. Both provide information in multiple languages. Fairfield Council places a greater focus on community languages because over 21 per cent of its residents have low or no English literacy skills. 

Recently, Campbelltown Council introduced an interactive way to engage residents in minimising and sorting waste. See Exhibit 11: Campbelltown Council's waste education van.

Councils charge residents a base rate to collect domestic waste and more for extra services

Councils set domestic waste charges. These are included in rates collected from property owners.

Both Councils base their standard domestic waste charge for each household on the average cost of these services across their local government area. In 2018–19, Campbelltown Council and Fairfield Council domestic waste charges were $394.55 and $494.57 respectively.

Since 2013–14, domestic waste charges in Campbelltown and Fairfield have increased by 35 per cent and 18 per cent respectively. Over the same period, the waste levy in the Sydney metropolitan area increased by 31 per cent.

Both Councils provide standardised bins and routine collection times

To help residents sort their waste, the EPA encourages councils to provide bins with coloured lids to signify the type of waste that should go in them. EPA guidance suggests that councils that use Australian Standards bin colours and regular collection times are likely to achieve improved waste sorting and lower levels of contamination. It also suggests that smaller bins for residual waste and reduced collection frequency encourages residents to produce less waste and better sort it.

Campbelltown Council provides a three bin collection system. This comprises a 140 litre red-lid bin for residual waste collected weekly, a 240 litre yellow-lid bin for dry recycling and a 240 litre green-lid bin for garden organics collected fortnightly. EPA guidelines suggest the three bin system represents good practice as it enables a higher waste diversion rate from landfill than a two bin system.

Fairfield Council provides a two bin system. This comprises a 240 litres red-lid bin for residual waste collected weekly and a 240 litre yellow-lid bin for dry recyclables collected fortnightly. It cannot readily move to a three bin system because this would break its current contract for processing and disposal of residual waste. Fairfield Council is one of only three councils in the Sydney metropolitan area that does not provide green bins for organic garden waste. 

According to the EPA, a best practice three bin system includes:

• a food and garden organics (FOGO) bin collected weekly
• a dry recyclables bin collected fortnightly
• a residual waste bin collected fortnightly.

This system is recommended for councils with a high proportion of single dwellings, where:

• residents are achieving high recovery rates and low contamination
• there is no access to facilities that process red-lid bin waste
• there is access to food and garden organic processing facilities and markets.

In the Sydney metropolitan area, only Penrith Council had this system at the time of this audit. The system may be worth considering by both Councils when they prepare their next waste processing contracts, partly because the EPA recently limited how organic material produced from red-lid bin waste can be used. This is discussed further in Section 5.4. 

Neither Council has ensured that all new multiple unit dwellings have sufficient and appropriate waste storage facilities

The design of waste storage areas affects the use, amenity, movement and handling of waste for the life of a property development.

Local councils are responsible for approving development applications for new dwellings. Both Campbelltown and Fairfield Councils provide guidance and place conditions on new developments. These encourage well designed storage areas that facilitate sorting and allow easy access to waste collection trucks.

Some new multiple unit dwellings do not have waste storage facilities that adequately support residents’ waste sorting because developers have not complied with development approval conditions. This has occurred because Campbelltown and Fairfield Councils have not included waste collection as an essential service in their Local Environmental Plans. Both Councils should address this urgently given their growing urban densification.

Problems include:

• insufficient facilities for the volume of waste generated
• storage facilities that are inconvenient for residents and garbage trucks to access
• single waste chutes that do not support waste stream separation
• difficulties moving bins between storage and collection points
• residents having to resort to keeping bins permanently in the street.

Both Councils undertake waste collection and transportation to processing facilities effectively. Residents are satisfied with their waste pick up services. Waste is collected and transported to processing facilities with sufficient controls in place to maintain separate waste streams.

In 2013, Campbelltown Council market tested private sector providers and contracted out its waste collection and transportation services. It is managing this contract effectively. The contract has KPIs and cost schedules, and the Council meets the contractor regularly to resolve performance issues.

Fairfield Council manages its waste collection and transportation in house.

‘Economy’ is defined as minimising costs for a given level and quality of service. Both Councils use their own networks to obtain insights into similar costs incurred by other councils. However, neither Council formally benchmarks its costs.

Campbelltown Council has minimised its waste collection and transportation costs, and achieved an adequate level of service. 

Fairfield Council cannot demonstrate that its in house waste collection and transportation services are economical.

Waste is picked up from households to the satisfaction of residents

In both Councils:

• resident surveys show high satisfaction with collection and transportation services
• complaints are low.

Both Councils have controls to minimise contamination during collection and transportation

The four main factors that can increase contamination of recyclable waste during collection and transportation are:

• loading the wrong bins for the type of recyclable materials
• using the wrong type of waste collection truck
• loading bins that contain contaminated waste
• excessive compacting of dry recyclables.

Both Campbelltown and Fairfield Councils use colour coded bin lids. This significantly reduces the risk that the wrong bins will be loaded.

To prevent contamination of recyclable material, both Councils use dedicated collection trucks for each type of waste. The trucks have features that visually identify the type of waste they are designated to collect.

Campbelltown Council’s collection contract includes a requirement for trucks to be painted in such a way as to distinguish which type of waste they are to collect. The contract with the service provider includes penalties for using the wrong trucks. Fairfield Council’s trucks that collect dry recyclables are significantly larger than the trucks that collect residual waste.

Campbelltown Council has minimised its waste collection and transportation costs

In 2013, Campbelltown Council entered into a ten year contract with an outsourced provider to collect and transport its waste. The contractor was chosen through a competitive process. At inception, it required the contractor to purchase a new fleet of collection vehicles to deliver the services.

The Council’s arrangements reflect an increasing trend by Sydney councils to outsource collection and transportation services.

The Council advised it cannot formally benchmark its economy with other councils for commercial confidentiality reasons.

To mitigate the lack of formal benchmarking opportunities, the Council could engage an experienced consultant with current knowledge of the Sydney market to advise it on the economy of its waste collection and transportation services.

Fairfield Council cannot adequately demonstrate the economy of its arrangements

Fairfield Council uses in house labour to collect and transport kerbside residual waste and dry recyclables. It advises that this has always been the case for residual waste. The Council advised that using in house labour allows more flexible use of resources to meet changing service needs.

The Council has never formally benchmarked the cost of its in house waste collection and transportation services. It advised that it cannot formally benchmark the cost of its waste collection and transportation services with other councils for commercial confidentiality reasons. In 1989, despite having no data to show the economy of providing these services, the elected Council made a policy decision to use in house labour instead of an outsourced contractor. Subsequent elected Councils have not expressed an interest to market test these activities.

Narrower roads may impact waste collection in the future

New land use plans in the Sydney metropolitan area include subdivisions with narrow roads that require small waste collection trucks. The EPA’s ‘Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Strategy: Draft for consultation, 2017’ says:

In new subdivisions the push for narrower roads may also generate demand for smaller collection vehicles which will need to be supported by transfer stations in close proximity.

Currently, neither Council uses small waste collection trucks. 

Using small trucks is costlier because it requires additional trucks and waste collection runs. This additional cost can be mitigated by the establishment of transfer stations, but current state determined land use plans do not include them.

The DPE advised that it is working with the EPA on a planning guideline for waste transfer stations to help streamline the approval and construction of those facilities.

Campbelltown and Fairfield Councils effectively process waste placed in green-lid and yellow-lid bins. However, neither Council is processing red-lid bin waste effectively. Their contractor accepts the waste delivered to it, but does not process it to meet contractual obligations. Instead, almost all red-lid bin waste of both Councils is sent to landfill. Both Councils have tried to get the contractor to process this waste, but with little success, so their contracts are ineffective. 

The Councils have minimised processing and disposal costs. Both Councils have little financial incentive to abandon red-lid bin waste contracts as they are disposing of this waste at a low cost. Also, they have no certainty they would get better recovery rates under different contractual arrangements or with different contractors.

Existing alternative waste treatment facilities do not have the capacity to process Sydney’s residual waste. In 2017, the EPA forecast that 16 more processing facilities, including three alternative waste treatment facilities, are needed to meet the recycling target. If the State’s recycling and waste reduction targets are not met, more landfills may be needed. Currently, Sydney does not have a waste infrastructure strategy that identifies suitable land and reserves for future facilities.

The market for recyclable materials has also changed. The revenue that processors earn from selling recyclable materials has dropped substantially. This is mainly due to overseas importers no longer accepting much of the material they used to accept. 

Neither Council effectively processes red-lid bin waste

Both Councils have outsourced the processing and disposal of waste. Their contracts include minimum rates for recovery of recyclable material through processing, which if achieved would deliver the State recycling target. 

Recovery rates for yellow-lid and green-lid waste are close to or being met but those for red-lid bin waste are not.

This assessment is based on the best data available. As discussed in Section 2.1, the data used are estimated recovery rates provided by the contractor and not verified by the Councils. 

Regardless of the level of processing, the contractors accept waste sent to them by the Councils and what is not recovered goes to landfill. 

Neither Council has effective contractual arrangements to manage red-lid bin waste processing 

Both Councils use the same contractor for processing residual waste. Both have tried to get their contractors to comply with contractual recovery rates, but without success.

Campbelltown Council has ongoing negotiations with its contractor. These have delivered marginal improvements. The Council took the contractor to court, which resulted in court ordered compensation. The contractor has indicated a willingness to improve further.

Fairfield Council advised it has been in dispute with its current contractor (and predecessor) since 2009.

The contractor had to decommission an alternative waste treatment facility due to odour affecting residential development. As discussed in the next section, there is a shortfall in processing and treatment facilities in the Sydney metropolitan area. 

The red-lid bin waste Sydney generates exceeds the capacity of its treatment plants

This inability of the Councils to get the contractor to meet its obligations for residual waste reflects the insufficient capacity of existing alternative waste treatment facilities to process residual waste generated in the Sydney metropolitan area. 

The alternative waste treatment facilities in Sydney and Woodlawn (250km from the Sydney metropolitan area) have a combined capacity to process less than 500,000 tonnes of waste per year. This, represents only 46 per cent of the residual waste generated by households in the Sydney metropolitan area in 2014–15.

The Councils advised that they cannot obtain better recovery rates under different contractual arrangements and at a reasonable price. 

Both Councils are minimising waste processing and disposal costs

Both Councils have long‑term contracts with private operators for waste processing and disposal. Both Councils entered into contracts with the former WSN Environmental Solutions (WSN) in the early 2000s. At the time, WSN was a public‑sector monopoly. In 2011, WSN was privatised and the contracts were transferred to a private company.

Campbelltown Council has a single contract for dry recyclables, garden organics and residual waste. It runs until 2024. Campbelltown Council led the development of this first multi‑council waste processing and disposal contract in New South Wales. The contract:

• leveraged greater bargaining power of four councils compared to a single council

• offered the scale needed to drive construction of an additional alternative waste treatment facility.

Fairfield Council has a contract for processing and disposing of residual waste. The contract runs until 2025. Fairfield Council was the first council in New South Wales to process its residual waste through an alternative waste treatment facility.

In 2014, Fairfield Council entered into a new contract for processing dry recyclables. The Council selected a new contractor through a competitive process. Current arrangements for dry recyclables are more cost effective than the previous arrangements.

Both Councils have implemented controls to ensure they only pay for the treatment and disposal of their own waste. Both reconcile contractor charges with records of waste drop‑offs. Fairfield Council checks charges regularly, while Campbelltown Council only does this occasionally.

Both Councils use their networks to assess processing and disposal costs, but do not formally benchmark these costs.

The latest information on waste charges and services published by the Councils’ contractor indicates that both Councils obtain their residual waste disposal services at a low cost compared to its standard rates. The information also shows that the cost of dry recyclables and garden organic processing services they obtain is relatively low.

Neither Council is financially disadvantaged if the contractor does not process residual waste and meet recovery rates. The contractor absorbs the additional waste levy that results from failing to meet the contracted recovery targets.

Sydney does not have a strategy to meet its processing and disposal infrastructure needs

The EPA is working on a longer‑term waste strategy for New South Wales. The strategy is expected to set a 20‑year vision with an aim of reducing waste, encouraging sustainable recycling markets and identifying and improving the State waste infrastructure network.

The 2018 NSW Parliamentary inquiry into ‘Energy from waste’ technology commented that it ‘appears that successive NSW Governments have taken a backseat in waste infrastructure planning and delivery, which has led to a projected shortfall of services across the State’.

The EPA’s ‘Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Strategy: Draft for consultation, 2017’ highlighted that ‘significant investment is needed to develop infrastructure that will process this forecast increase in waste volume’. The Draft Strategy predicted that, to meet the State’s targets for diverting waste from landfill, the Sydney metropolitan area will require the following new facilities by 2021:

• 3 facilities for processing residual waste
• 2 energy recovery facilities
• 2 dry recyclable processing facilities
• 5 garden organic processing facilities
• 4 food and garden organic processing facilities.

The consultation draft also commented that some capacity for energy recovery may need to be developed and that ‘failure to meet the 2021 target (for diversion to landfill) could result in significant increased demand for landfill capacity and an accompanying decrease in demand for resource recovery facilities’.

The Greater Sydney Commission’s ‘Greater Sydney Region Plan, A Metropolis of Three Cities – connecting people’ also commented on waste management facility and landfill infrastructure shortfalls and the associated costs to the community. It also commented that ‘identifying suitable sites is challenging due to the potential impacts of odour, truck movements and noise’.

The projected shortfall needs to be considered in the context of the five to ten years it usually takes investors to obtain all the necessary approvals and to build the type of facilities the Sydney metropolitan area needs.

The EPA’s longer‑term strategy should seek to introduce more contestability in the market or, if this is not feasible, introduce methods to regulate natural monopolies or oligopolies. The EPA advised that it is working with NSW Treasury to improve the functioning of the market.

Parliamentary inquiries have commented on the changing recyclables market, policy gaps and infrastructure shortages

The 2018 NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into ‘Energy from waste’ technology commented on the ‘potential collapse of the State’s kerbside recycling system’ as a result of China’s decision to restrict waste imports. Before January 2018, much of Australia's recyclable waste was exported to China, but a more restrictive Chinese policy, called National Sword, means this is no longer likely to occur. The policy has impacted the global market and Australian prices for recyclable materials have fallen accordingly.

The 2018 Senate Inquiry into the ‘Waste and recycling industry in Australia’ commented that the ‘recycling industry is in crisis’ after ‘years of failure across all levels of government to make the policy decisions required to put the industry on a solid footing’. It also commented that there ‘has also been a failure to adequately invest in recycling infrastructure and technology, develop robust and sustainable domestic markets for recyclables or provide appropriate regulatory frameworks to ensure the future of recycling’.

The NSW Government has established an inter‑governmental taskforce to progress a strategic response to the slump in the recyclable materials market, which impacts local councils and the waste industry. The NSW Government also re‑purposed up to $47.0 million of the Waste Less, Recycle More initiative to support local government and industry respond to China’s policy.