Among the multitude of South Australian government
bureaucratic games largely played out of public view is the one where the state
imposes a tax on defenceless local councils but doesn’t deliver what the tax is
supposed to fund. Worse, it hikes the tax rate mercilessly over a few short
years, forcing local government to make up the loss through rates increases.
This irritates the heck out of the people that local government serves, its
commercial and residential ratepayers. Meanwhile, state politicians pretend
that they know nothing about the angst it causes. Adelaide metro mayors are
sick of the government tactic, and recently made their opinions heard.
There’s currently a crisis in local government waste
collection and recycling. China doesn’t want to recycle our plastic rubbish
anymore. Of course, it’s much more complicated than that, but it has brought
into sharp relief a matter of a tax that few South Australians knew about. Put
simply, given the way the tax is levied, but not fully directed to deliver
tangible results, it’s a well-polished government racket. Despite a very clear
analysis of the recycling problem faced by local government, and a sound
understanding of short- and long-term solutions, the issue has been herded into
a state parliament inquiry into the recycling industry. It will likely sit for
some time before releasing its findings, but the issues and potential solutions
are already known. This is often how parliamentary inquiries work. State
politicians scratch their heads in faux bafflement as they ask for agency and
industry advice. But key ministers will have already received comprehensive
warnings and wise advice, sometimes for years, leading up to a crisis.
The South Australian government is sitting on more than $120 million of unspent waste levy fund payments (that’s the tax), held by what’s called the Green Industry Fund (SA). Green Industries SA (GISA) is a small agency, apparently committed to funding initiatives to improve green recycling. In 2017–18 it collected $31.7m under that tax, ostensibly making up most of GISA’s $35m budget. However, while its annual report claims it spent $23.5m of that figure, in reality it spent much less operationally because $13.79m of it had been hived off in transfers to other corners of government for “climate change initiatives”. GISA works to improve SA waste recycling. Most of the cheques it writes for recycling initiatives are for relatively small sums. They’re undoubtedly useful to local government and others. Meanwhile, however, that $120 million just sits there. The waste levy (the tax) falls on every metro council – likely yours.
Lately it’s been ruthlessly applied, jumping 125 per cent in only five years. In 2015–16 it was $52 per tonne of rubbish collected per council. In July 2020 it will be $140 per tonne. It’s not as if GISA operational costs are spiking. They’re not. The collection of this tax might be described as one of the state’s great rackets, because, as the City of Adelaide noted in its July 2019 submission to the parliamentary committee, “it has minimum impact on the creation of local recycling markets or incentives for more environmentally minded packaging and materials”. Meanwhile, the food and beverage packaging industry continues to do very nicely, irresponsibly creating a waste stream in which some elements are also non-recyclable and environmentally harmful. It creates the problem, but local government largely cops the consequences because it is charged with the job of coordinating recycling. Very recently, the news about the looming jump to $140/tonne prompted sound and fury among metro councils, many of which were forced, very late in their budget processes, to hike rates to cover it.
The city council’s proposals feature a mix of procedural
fix-ups, but also confront the political tax question. “Spend the Waste Levy
Fund [$120m] to support the strategic priorities of Green Industries SA, or
reduce the waste levy accordingly,” say city council administrators. That’s a
diplomatic way of saying ‘Stop taxing us rotten for no good reason, and
seriously prod Green Industries SA into investing all the tax money in
strategies that will address the crisis’. Before the latest crisis, GISA
planned something in February 2018, writing a Waste and Resource Recovery
Infrastructure Plan, but it clearly wasn’t enough to avoid a full-blown train wreck
when China closed the doors.
Here are some other city council recommendations (with plain
English interpretations below in parentheses). 1. “More support to transition
Australia to a robust circular economy…” (That means pursuing a practicable
recycling culture across all the states, and not just having a deposit only on
pop and beer bottles and cans, and only very selectively in states like SA.
That one will be the most difficult to achieve, given that our 1901
constitution created silos called states and territories that rarely agree on
anything.) 2. Commence data acquisition. (Adopt a better systems-based
approach, which will deliver a clearer picture of what’s going on.) 3. “Enhance
resource recovery.” (Improve it by confronting the packaging industry, calling
out its habit of using difficult-to-recycle, environmentally harmful packaging,
which leads to uneconomic conditions for the recyclers.) 4. “Prioritise local
reprocessing and market development”. (It has to return to local processors,
but they won’t do it if it’s uneconomic. Right now, it’s uneconomic.)
Potential for optimism
The city council’s conclusion suggests a way forward, once
the state government stops its tax-for-no-result racket. “This [council]
approach will build the local economy [currently in major slowdown mode];
create ongoing employment [when unemployment and under-employment rates are
much worse than the official figures]; foster business innovation [which
emerges when there’s a real opportunity and a profitable motive to do so]; and
remove the heavy reliance on international markets” [passing the buck to China
and other countries was never clever; only opportunistic]. The parliamentary
inquiry may now rise. These will be the recommendations. Just wait and see.
Ash Whitefly is Executive Director of the Adelaide Whitefly Institute of Diplomatic Studies.
Get the latest from The Adelaide Review in your inbox
Get the latest from The Adelaide Review in your inbox