Communities value their LG waste collection and drop-off services

LG entities collect and dispose of their community’s waste. Almost all of the State’s LG entities that reported waste and recycling data (132 of 139) offer a weekly or fortnightly kerbside waste collection service and drop-off facilities (Table 2). Only 19 LG entities reported using a third kerbside bin to collect GO or FOGO. Regional LG entities collect kerbside waste, however only 65% collect kerbside recycling. These essential services help to protect community health and the environment.[1]

Source: OAG from DWER LG Census data

Table 2: LG waste services reported in the 2016-17 and 2017-18 LG Census.[2] *Most Perth and Peel LG entities use regional council drop-off facilities

Communities are generally satisfied with LG waste collection and drop-off services. We reviewed 20 community scorecards, which provided feedback on the performance of LG service delivery between 2017 and 2019. Respondents gave the LG entities an average positive rating of 92% for weekly waste collection services. They also ranked these services as high performing or significant areas of strength for the majority (75%) of LG entities. Our sample of scorecards, including half from regional and half from Perth and Peel LG entities, showed a strong positive rating. This reflected community satisfaction across the state.

Most LG entities are not on track to meet waste recovery targets

Community and State expectations for waste management have changed over the last 8 years. The inaugural Waste Strategy 2012 set clear targets to increase the amount of waste diverted from landfill. The Waste Strategy 2030 shifted the focus to both avoid and recover waste, by setting targets to recover 65% of MSW in the Perth and Peel region and 50% for MRCs by 2020, increasing to 70% and 60% respectively, by 2030 (Table 3). These strategies were developed in consultation with the community, industry and government, and show the shift in State and community expectations, from solely focusing on waste collection and disposal from households, to waste recovery and waste minimisation. As a result, both the State and local communities expect LG entities to recover more materials that would otherwise have ended up in landfill or stockpiled.

Source: OAG from WA’s Waste Strategy 2030

Table 3: Waste Strategy 2030 objectives and State and community targets that relate to this audit[3]

The majority of LG entities are unlikely to meet the State’s waste recovery goals. In our analysis of reported 2017-18 data, the combined Perth and Peel LG entities recovered only 41% of their waste. This fell short of the target to divert 65% of metropolitan waste from landfill by 2020. The 5 MRCs of Albany, Busselton, Bunbury, Greater Geraldton and Kalgoorlie-Boulder recovered 28% of their waste, which was also well below their 50% target. 

Just 4 of the State’s 132 LG entities that reported waste and recycling data had met the State’s targets to increase the amount of resources recovered from waste by 2017-18. None of the Perth and Peel LG entities had reached the waste recovery target of 65% (Figure 2). Of the 5 MRCs, only Bunbury had met the recovery target of 50%, recovering 61% of its waste (Figure 2). Neither the Waste Strategy 2012 nor the Waste Strategy 2030 provided targets for smaller regional LG entities. However, a further 3 smaller regional LG entities reported recovery rates of 51-58%. Each sent all kerbside waste and recycling to landfill, but recovered a significant portion of drop-off waste delivered direct to a waste facility by residents. The low recovery rates mean that recyclable materials still end up in landfill, contrary to State and community expectations.

Source: OAG analysis of DWER LG Census data

Figure 2: LG entity recovery rates reported in 2017-18 compared to the Waste Strategy 2012 and Waste Strategy 2030 targets of 65% for Perth and Peel RCs and 50% for MRCs

Of the 6 LG entities sampled during our audit, only Melville and Bunbury are on track to meet the Waste Strategy 2030 targets. Both had waste recovery rates of about 60% for 3 years from 2016-17 to 2018-19 (Figure 3). Bunbury was the first LG to introduce the 3-bin FOGO system in 2013 and has shown consistently high performance over a 3 year period. Bunbury and Melville share some characteristics:

• a 3-bin FOGO system or alternative waste treatment to separate organic waste
• in-house kerbside collection services conducted by the LG
• significant investment in regular community education.

The remaining 4 LG entities showed limited signs of improving their waste recovery performance to the extent needed to meet the State’s recovery targets. However, 1 LG entity had an agreement to supply residual waste to a waste to energy plant, which it advised would allow it to meet the State’s 65% recovery target. This arrangement aligned with the previous Waste Strategy 2012, which aimed to divert waste from landfill. At the time of our audit, LG entities had limited time to accommodate the change in approach of the new Waste Strategy 2030, which aligns with the waste hierarchy (Figure 1) and supports adoption of a 3-bin FOGO system.

Source: DWER and OAG with data supplied by the LG entities

Figure 3: Reported recovery rates for the 6 audited LG entities from 2016-17 to 2018-19 showing progress towards meeting Waste Strategy 2030 community recovery targets for 2020. Note: regional target applies to MRCs only

LG entities do not provide sufficient public information on their waste recovery targets or their progress to meet these targets. Only 2 of the 6 LG entities sampled in our audit provided this information on their websites or in annual reports. DLGSC’s MyCouncil website allows the community to view and compare LG information on services such as waste. It reports tonnes of waste and recycling collected, but does not provide recovery rates for each LG entity. This lack of transparency means that the community has limited visibility of what LG entities are doing to improve waste management outcomes or if they are on track to achieve them.

[1] We have only provided data for the 33 Perth and Peel LGs and 5 MRC LGs defined in the current Waste Strategy 2030. The Waste Strategy 2012 referred to 31 metropolitan LGs, which excluded Mandurah and Waroona, and defined MRCs as ‘Avon, Greater Bunbury, Albany, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie, Karratha, Peel and Busselton’.

[2] Note: we used data from the 2016-17 LG Census for LG entities that did not report waste services in the 2017-18 LG Census.

[3] Additional targets are outlined in the Waste Strategy 2030