Wednesday, 10 September 2025

Waste and recycling management

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:23): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes:

(a) the four-bin waste and recycling system is soon to be introduced to municipal collections across Victoria;

(b) that many municipal councils have expressed concerns about the cost of the ‘fourth bin’ and its likely impact on council collections;

(c) that this scheme is to be introduced in parallel with the government’s container deposit scheme;

(2) in accordance with standing order 10.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, within four weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution:

(a) all documents relating to the cost impact of the ‘fourth bin’ proposal;

(b) all documents received from local councils by the Minister for Environment or the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) discussing or examining the implementation and impact of the scheme;

(c) all briefs to the Minister for Environment concerning the ‘fourth bin’; and

(d) all documents examining the costs and impacts of the scheme and consultancies regarding the scheme and/or its impacts commissioned by the DEECA, the Department of Treasury and Finance or the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

This is a straightforward short-form documents motion. We are simply asking for information that should be readily available to the Parliament and the taxpayers of this state. The government has it on hand and should disclose it in the interests of good governance, transparency and accountability. In the second-reading debate for the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Bill 2021 I warned the government about the issues we foresaw with the fourth bin’s impact on councils and ratepayers. I also warned that the lack of substance made our debate in Parliament deeply flawed. It was an example of government by regulation, not legislation, with ministers completely failing to provide any detail about the scheme’s operation. Releasing and examining the information on which they based these regulations is paramount.

I believed that a uniform approach to transitioning kerbside waste collection was inappropriate, and I stand by those concerns. Ms McLeish in the other place pointed out the fourth bin would become a requirement regardless of cost or common sense. Mr O’Brien of the Nationals expressed concern about a one-size-fits-all approach for rural councils and some inner-city councils where a fourth bin would be impractical, and he encouraged the government to listen to and consult with councils and regional Victorians. We moved amendments to the legislation, but they were defeated. We asked questions in the committee stage, but they were evaded. Interestingly, the then local government minister was quoted in Hansard as saying:

… there is the availability for councils to have that flexibility. It does not have to be a four-bin system for every council …

Which is it – flexibility or mandate? In the interest of supporting the overall aim of the legislation, we did not oppose the legislation, hoping that the government would do the right thing by the local government sector.

But what have we seen since? Not pragmatism but inflexibility, not cost savings but cost burdens and not a circular economy but a mounting pile of complaints from councils. The government’s mandated fourth bin is becoming nothing but a purple-lidded pantomime. The scheme has a price tag of at least $640 million over 10 years, imposed on councils, charged to ratepayers and delivered with the subtlety of a dump truck. Households are already under enormous pressure. Power bills are soaring, mortgage repayments and rents are going up and grocery prices climb every week. And what does Labor think is the answer? Another bin, another bill, more bureaucracy, more cost shifting.

It is no wonder councils across the state are in revolt; 33 have joined forces against the government on this issue. During my own extensive tour of Victoria’s councils, many of the over 40 councils I have met with personally have raised concerns about this initiative. According to Herald Sun data from the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, only 25 councils have started a kerbside collection service for glass. That means nearly 70 per cent of Victoria’s councils have just over a year to implement the new system. Clearly they are holding back on signing costly contracts in the hope that this government will reconsider their mandate. According to Maroondah mayor Kylie Spears this service will cost councils on average $4 million to implement and an average of an additional $27 per household every year to run. That will be the largest increase to waste charge passed on to the community ever.

Yet Labor barrels on regardless. They never admit what they have got wrong, they never stop to listen to the people who must deliver these schemes and they certainly never reveal the real costs until it is too late. That is why this motion matters. It seeks the documents that will show Victorians the truth: the costings, the ministerial briefs, the letters from councils, the consultant reports – everything this government is hiding while it pushes ahead with its political decisions. Every dollar wasted on this is a dollar stolen from local roads, community infrastructure and core services. Budgets are tight, and too many councils are financially unsustainable. The last thing they need is 1 Treasury Place dictating a half-baked scheme that drains their coffers and clutters up their communities. That is the difference between us and them. We are for choice; they are for control. We are for ratepayers; they are for themselves. I commend this motion to the house.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (10:28): These changes are part of a broad sweep of changes that come in response to, if you remember, some years ago, massive piles of commingled rubbish on fire, smoking out Melbourne; the export of recycled rubbish to China; and the complete unaccountability of us as consumers for the waste from the products that we buy. I find it a bit rich, picking off one aspect of that broader sweep of the circular economy policy and programs that we have, to rip into the purple bin scenario. The rationale for collecting glass is a logical one. It is an important way to improve the quality of our household recyclables, keeping valued materials out of landfill. Currently glass collected through the mixed recycling bin contaminates all other materials in the bin. Shards of broken glass become embedded in plastics and paper, making them harder to recycle and of lower value.

This results in recyclables ending up in landfill instead of being reused. By collecting glass separately, the plastics and paper we recycle will no longer be contaminated by glass and will be of greater value. In addition, greater volumes of glass will be recycled, with jars and bottles transformed back into jars and bottles multiple times, reducing the use of virgin materials and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from the glass manufacturing process.

On the issue about costs for councils, these include direct savings from the introduction of the purple bin in recycling gate fees and landfill levies and opportunities for efficiency improvements in their entire collection services. So they do save money. I think it is very important that we see this in the broader context of the circular economy in our state.

I just want to close by talking about Warrnambool City Council, who ran a trial in February 2020 of the purple bin and whose council unanimously supported the introduction of the purple bin in July 2020. That is more than five years ago. As a resident of Warrnambool, when we built our garage I think it was two bins then. It is a bit disappointing that I now have to try and figure out a location for four bins, but that really is the only concern in this.

This is what the Standard reported:

On Monday night the council unanimously voted to give all households four bins after declaring the trial a success.

…

Mr Schneider –

the CEO at the time –

said the results of a survey sent to households involved in the trial showed the majority of residents supported the addition of the glass-only bin.

Some of the feedback was that the bin was a little bit noisy. I have to confess here, in our house we have nicknamed the purple bin the bin of shame. So when you sit in the house and the bin collection comes on purple bin night, the amount of volume of noise of the glass going into the rubbish truck is proportionate to the consumption of perhaps beverages during the fortnight. (Time expired)

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (10:33): The Greens will support this motion, as we do with documents motions. In the interest of transparency I want to be clear at the outset, though, the Greens have supported the four-stream waste system, however that is implemented, from the beginning when it was recommended by the Greens-initiated inquiry into recycling and waste management in 2019. The committee recommended a standardised four streams of waste comprising mixed recycling, glass, food and organics and residual waste. Regarding a separate glass service, the committee’s final report stated that:

… while the costs for such a scheme may be considerable, the overall benefits to Victoria’s waste and resource recovery system are greater. The Government should provide funding and support to councils to implement a separate municipal glass recycling bin.

Glass is infinitely recyclable, but currently a huge proportion of it is not, and failure to separate it from other waste streams is a big part of the problem. Glass is also a key contaminant, preventing the proper sorting and recycling of other waste streams when they are commingled, so keeping glass separate, whether it is in kerbside bins or arrangements like community drop-off points, is an important part of improving Victoria’s waste system. I note that a number of councils have raised concerns about the cost of rolling out a glass service by the 2027 deadline. I am all too aware of the financial constraints of councils due to prolific cost shifting from this state government and a state-imposed rate cap. Given the regional electorate that I represent, I am also sympathetic to councils who point out that what works in the city might not work in the country.

When the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Bill was debated here in this chamber in 2021, my former Greens colleague Dr Samantha Ratnam rightly pointed out that some local government areas might not be suited to a four-bin kerbside pickup system and asked for confirmation that councils would be able to retain some flexibility in how they offer recycling services as long as they are increasing material separation and recycling rates. The minister at the time, one Honourable Shaun Leane MP, representing Minister D’Ambrosio in the other place, confirmed that as long as councils ensured they were providing four separate waste streams, there would be flexibility in how the councils could do this based on the circumstances unique to the area. Under the draft waste and recycling service standard that is currently under review, kerbside bin collection is the preferred model, while acknowledging that municipalities would retain the right to propose alternative arrangements if kerbside collection was not reasonably practicable, including for geographically dispersed areas like much of my electorate or for households that do not have space for four bins. Alternatives can already be seen in some areas of inner-city Melbourne. My Greens colleagues tell me in their electorates there have been numerous examples of well-utilised community glass drop-off points for higher density areas.

If councils are experiencing government or departmental pushback against their proposals for flexibility based on the genuine need of their local area, that is really concerning and it needs to change. I have also heard that some councils may not be aware that flexibility is an option at all, which brings into question the government’s commitment to really making this work. I am aware that there have been calls for the separate glass waste stream to be scrapped altogether and replaced with an expanded container deposit scheme. While it would be great to see an expansion of the types of waste and containers that the container deposit scheme will accept, at the moment it is just not an equal trade. Surveys also show that there is strong community preference in many areas for kerbside glass services where practicable. The reality is we need both. We have a serious waste and recycling problem, and there is no magic silver or purple bullet. It is going to take many different approaches, significant investment and genuine commitment to waste reduction and a truly circular economy. We have got a long way to go. So I would urge the Victorian Labor government to step up, listen to the findings of the government’s own committee following more than 700 submissions from councils, industry experts and environmental organisations, and provide adequate resourcing to support councils to roll out a four-stream waste collection, whatever that looks like.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:38): I rise to speak on Mrs McArthur’s excellent documents motion on the four-bin waste and recycling scheme here in Victoria. It is an important motion, particularly because of the concern that it is causing in the state of Victoria and the concern it is causing councils. You have had 33 different councils band together to oppose the implementation of this scheme. As we have seen over and over and over again, the state government loves to outsource its management of programs, the funding for these programs, and lump it all on local government, which means that they have less resources to be able to meet the needs of their communities. That is what is happening at the moment. That is what we see when they make local government become a tax collector for the emergency services levy, waste levies and other levies. As someone dealing with two sets of nappies at home, fortnightly rubbish collection is a big inconvenience, and an inconvenience, I know, for many families around the state.

In a past life, before I was a member of Parliament, I worked at a distinguished think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs. I commented at the time of this announcement that the Labor government was conscripting all Victorians to become unpaid rubbish sorters, and it was true. It went viral. The ‘I stand with Dan’ people went out and said, ‘This is ridiculous,’ but it was actually true.

You only have to look at the impact these kinds of schemes have had on the City of Yarra, where every fortnight the streets of Yarra look like a Third World country. You have got people like Peter from Richmond, who has complained almost 500 times to Yarra City Council about overflowing rubbish in places like Lennox Street. I know Ms Ermacora – she has gone now – mentioned that they are going to have to figure out a way in their home to deal with a fourth bin. Try asking the many residents I have spoken to in terrace housing in Richmond how they are going to fit in a fourth bin or how they currently cannot fit a fourth bin into their terrace housing. But again the government has said, ‘We’re going to do this policy, here’s a whole bunch of money for it, $640 million,’ and outsourced all the responsibility to local government.

We know through the many, many councils that my colleague Mrs McArthur has met with, including many in my constituency and electorate, that they are not happy about this. They believe they do not have the proper funding to resource this, they have not been given enough lead-up time to prepare for this. We are seeing councils struggle with state government incompetence and cost shifting in so many areas – we had a whole inquiry about it – whether it be maintenance of arterial roads, funding for roads, funding for maternal and child health, which has been cut in the growth areas. Over and over again, cost shifting on resourcing to local government or cuts to services of local government, and then they are just pushing off, at massive cost, different programs for local governments to deal with, like this four-bin system. I think it is worth retrieving documents on this.

I commend Mrs McArthur for putting it forward, because – and they might laugh at it – it is something that mayors and CEOs are raising all across the state; it is something the community is mentioning all across the state. I think this is really important. Victorians ought to expect transparency from this government. I am guessing in about six months, after three extensions, the clerks will stand up and say ‘no documents are found’ or ‘cabinet in confidence’ or ‘executive privilege’ or something like that, but it is worth putting these documents motions forward to get answers.

Motion agreed to.