APR/MAY 2026 ISSUE 131
22 Director’s responsibilities 28 Have we got circularity wrong? 34 Tyre recycling update
Northern Italy’s path to high recycling rates By Inside Waste Recovery rates have stalled at around two thirds of eligible containers.
Container exchange – facing its next evolution By Inside Waste
PP: 100024538
ISSN 1837-5618
Trevor Evans did not arrive at Container Exchange (COEX) as an outsider. Before becoming interim chief executive officer, he had already spent months inside the organisation in an advisory capacity. His work focused on stakeholder engagement, giving him a close view of how the scheme functioned from within. Currently, COEX is taking onboard 21 recommendations provided after an Inquiry into Improving Queensland’s Container Refund Scheme, which was tabled in the state’s Legislative Assembly on October 16, 2025. The report identified serious failures in governance, management, and accountability, including conflicts of interest and, is alleged to have led to referrals to the Crime and Corruption Commission. Evans has jumped into the fire, but if you think he is phased by these issues, think again. Having been in the boxing ring that is the Federal Parliament as the Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management under the recently
ousted Liberal leader Sussan Ley, Evans frames it as an opportunity to build on a scheme that is already delivering strong outcomes. “It’s not a poison chalice,” he said. “There are plenty of challenges, but actually it’s an opportunity-rich environment. The scheme fundamentally is a good one. It achieves some fantastic results.” Is he defensive at all about the recommendations? Not at all. He said that he agrees with most of them. He argues that longevity of such a scheme inevitably brings scrutiny and that a review was both timely and appropriate given the scale and age of the program. For Evans, the inquiry is less about fault and more about evolution. After seven years of operation, he believes the scheme was due for reflection and recalibration. His focus now is on demonstrating that Container Exchange can learn from the past while continuing to improve its performance and relationships with stakeholders. (Continued on page 9)
One of the bugbears of Australia is its tyranny of distance. It is for this reason that, when the federation was founded, it was decided to divide the country into states and territories so the various settlements could be the masters of their own destiny, overseen by a federal parliament. Fast-forward 125 years, and this federation style of governing is seen by some as not user-friendly for waste/resource recovery. While the federal government is responsible for certain aspects of the resource recovery sector (i.e. 2030 mandatory recycling targets), there are many differences when it comes to state landfill levies, licenses for infrastructure (and the standards that need to be met), differences in Container Deposit Schemes, as well as the number of bins used to collect the various waste streams. With that in mind, imagine a country like Italy trying to co-ordinate more than 8,000 municipal councils/regional authorities to get on the same page when it comes to household collections and meeting targets set by the national government. Italy has source separated collection for 80 per cent of municipal waste. This did not emerge from a single policy decision, but from a governance structure that combined national direction with strong regional and local autonomy. Italy is not a federal state, yet national legislation sets clear recycling targets that every region must meet. How those targets are achieved is left to regional and local authorities, allowing different approaches to develop within a shared framework. . (Continued on page 18)