Chapter 1Introduction and background issues
Referral
1.1On 28 February 2024, the Senate referred an inquiry into waste reduction and recycling policies (the inquiry) to the Environment and Communications References Committee (the committee), with the following terms of reference:
The effectiveness of the Albanese Labor Government’s waste reduction andrecycling policies in delivering a circular economy, with reference to:
(a)recycling export regulations imposed through the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, noting the:
(i)ramifications for Australia’s international and domestic commitments and obligations under the Act,
(ii)benefits and consequences of imposing the requirements on the Australian industry, and
(iii)interaction and efficacy of the community and economic benefits of thelegislation;
(b)the efficacy and progress on circular economy deliverables;
(c)the progress on the implementation of mandated product stewardship schemes;and
(d)any other related matters.
1.2The committee was required to report by 22November2024. On 10October2024, the committee was granted an extension of time to report, to 5March2025. On 28February2025, the committee sought an extension to 14March2025, and on 14March, sought a further extension to 15April2025.
Conduct of the inquiry
1.3Details of the inquiry were made available on the committee's webpage and the committee invited various organisations, key stakeholders, and individuals to provide submissions.
1.4The committee received 84written submissions, as listed at Appendix1 of this report and available on the committee's website. Appendix1 also lists the additional information received during the inquiry, including answers to questions on notice.
1.5The committee held the following public hearings:
8 May 2024 in Sydney;
5 August 2024 in Melbourne;
20 September 2024 in Sydney;and
14 February 2025 in Canberra.
1.6A list of the organisations and individuals who attended these public hearings as witnesses can be found in Appendix2.
Report Structure
1.7This report is comprised of eight chapters, as detailed below.
1.8Chapter1 provides background information on the referral, conduct and context of the inquiry. It also outlines some of the fundamental elements of waste reduction and recycling policies in Australia, including the RecyclingandWasteReductionAct2020, jurisdictional responsibilities and obligations, and a summary of other parliamentary inquiries into similar issues. It also explains the common view of inquiry participants that 'waste' would better be considered as a 'resource', and issues with data collection around waste and recycling outcomes in Australia.
1.9Chapter2 details current waste management and recycling practices in Australia, including the National Waste Policy and the associated National Waste Policy Action Plan. It examines issues with regulatory fragmentation across Australia and the need for national frameworks—as highlighted by kerbside waste collection issues. It then presents evidence received from submitters and witnesses calling for action and investment to address Australian waste and recycling needs.
1.10Chapter3 outlines Australia's progress towards a circular economy, and Australia's engagement with international agreements and pollution reduction treaties. It presents the interim and final findings of the Circular Economy Ministerial Advisory Group, the interim findings of the Productivity Commission, and details the evidence both in support of the circular economy and identifying where changes are needed to ensure widespread circularity. The chapter examines the role of financial incentives in driving circularity and the increased use of recycled material.
1.11Chapter4 discusses product stewardship and extended producer responsibility schemes, and the evidence put forward regarding the role of mandatory—instead of voluntary—stewardship schemes. It also describes product stewardship schemes in Australia for specific resources, including those for oil, and tyres, and the calls for a national ban on the export of unprocessed scrap metal. It looks specifically at battery stewardship, including new regulations recently introduced in NewSouthWales(NSW), and the calls for national leadership on battery collection and recycling.
1.12Chapter5 looks at Australia's current product packaging framework, including the role of the Australian Packaging Covenant, the Australasian Recycling Label, traceability frameworks and the role of recycling and plastics in Australia's waste and resource economy. It examines packaging reform, and evidence around the need for mandatory packaging regulations and recycled content volumes.
1.13Chapter6 considers problematic waste streams and explains some of the key findings of the most recent Australian Plastics Flows and Fates Study. The chapter looks at how specific items—especially soft plastics and plastic packaging—are currently processed through the waste stream and how such products could be better managed.
1.14Chapter7 explains Australia's waste export regulations, including the associated licensing and variation fees, and the concerns raised during the inquiry about current exporting requirements and import conditions. It also outlines expenditure and concerns with the Recycling Modernisation Fund.
1.15The report's final chapter, Chapter8, presents the committee's views and recommendations.
Acknowledgements
1.16The committee thanks all those who contributed to the inquiry by making submissions, providing additional information, and appearing at hearings.
Waste in Australia
1.17Australia's rates of waste generation continue to rise. In 2006-07,Australia generated more than 43milliontonnes(Mt) of waste, equivalent to 2tonnesperperson (based on the population at the time).
1.18By2022-23, this figure had increased, with Australia generating an estimated 75.6 Mt of waste, equivalent to almost 3tonnes per capita and comprising predominantly of:
26.8 Mt of building and demolition materials;
14.6 Mt of organics;
10.3 Mt of ash;
6.5 Mt of hazardous wastes;
6.0 Mt of metals;
4.9 Mt of paper and cardboard;and
3.0 Mt of plastics.
1.19Figure 1.1 shows waste generation, management type and recovery rate by waste category. The figure indicates that the recovery rate for metals was the highest, at 90 per cent, and plastics was the lowest, at just 12 per cent.
Figure 1.1Waste generation and management by waste category, Australia, 2022-23
Source: DCCEEW, National Waste and Resource Recovery Report 2024 (prepared by Blue Environment Pty Ltd), January2025,p.xiv.
1.20The sources of the above waste in2022-23 were:
13.5 Mt from municipal solid waste, from households and local governmentactivities;
32.9 Mt from the commercial and industrial stream (including ash);and
29.2 Mt from the construction and demolition stream.
1.21Of the total waste generated by Australia in 2022-23, 66 per cent was recovered, and34 per cent was disposed of.
1.22In2022-23, materials recovery facilities (MRFs) received approximately 2.0 Mt of materials, comprising about 1.8 Mt from households, and 0.2 Mt from commercial sources.
1.23Over the 15-year period from 2006-07 to 2022-23, the amount of waste sent to disposal (where no further use is made of the waste) was relatively stable, at around 28 Mt peryear.
1.24During the same period, the national trend in resource recovery—where waste materials are returned to productive use—was also upwards. Data from 2022‑23 indicates that Australia's resource recovery rate was 66 per cent. Resource recovery includes activities which culminate in the reprocessing of wastes into products, or secondary materials which are returned to productive use, including for energy.
1.25This 66 per cent comprised of:
63 per cent recycling;
0.2 per cent waste reuse;and
3 per cent energy recovery (mostly associated with the use of landfill gas forgenerating electricity).
Plastics and packaging
1.26Nearly 3 Mt of plastic waste was generated in2022-23, the equivalent of 114kilograms per capita. The recovery rate for plastics remains very low—at just 12.5per cent for 2022-23. Approximately 99 per cent of this recovered plastic is recycled, with one per cent recovered for energy. The remaining 87.5percent of plastic in the waste stream went to landfill. The 2022-23 National Waste and Resource Recovery Report, released in 2024, found that:
Major investments in plastics sorting and processing infrastructure are underway to soak up the additional demand and meet Australia's targets for recycling of plastic packaging… To meet the targets, it will be necessary to greatly expand recovery of soft plastic packaging. Trials are in progress to collect these materials in domestic recycling bins.
There is also a need to find more onshore productive uses for recoveredplastics.
1.27The 2022-23 National Waste and Resource Recovery Report noted that 'packaging waste is an important component of the [municipal solid waste] and [commercial and industrial] source streams and a longstanding focus of public policy and community concern'.
1.28The report further observed that between 2017-18 and 2021-22, packaging quantities (excluding timber) placed on the market increased by approximately four per cent per year—almost three times the rate of population growth over the same period.
1.29As will be outlined later in this report, there have been several initiatives and targets implemented over recent years to reduce the volume of packaging and plastics on the market and moving through waste streams. The committee discusses in Chapter 8 how a lack of appropriate infrastructure, incentives and enforcement mechanisms have hindered progress against various waste reduction, recycling and packaging targets, and makes relatedrecommendations.
Waste prevention
1.30Waste prevention includes deliberate actions to stop materials entering a formal or informal waste management facility or system. Further, 'waste prevention actions focus on reducing waste at its origin and are of central importance in driving change as Australia moves towards a circular economy'.
1.31The waste hierarchy was revised in 2022 to place greater emphasis on waste prevention efforts. The revised hierarchy aims to improve data collection (discussed further below), and to 'assist stakeholders in understanding, measuring and promoting waste prevention efforts in Australia'. As noted by the 2024 National Waste and Resource Recovery Report, all levels of government across Australia are 'beginning to focus on waste prevention in public policy and programs', especially as:
Waste prevention aligns with the circular economy principles of minimising resource inputs and keeping products and components in use at their highest value for as long as possible.
1.32The revised waste hierarchy, including examples of waste prevention actions, is presented in Figure 1.2:
Figure 1.2The waste hierarchy framework, with examples of waste prevention actions
Source: DCCEEW, National Waste and Resource Recovery Report 2024 (prepared by Blue Environment Pty Ltd), January 2025, p. 19.
1.33As will be detailed throughout this report, the committee was told of the numerous benefits of resource recovery, recycling and remanufacture to both the Australian economy and environment.
1.34It was argued that domestic recycling 'stimulates investment in recycling and manufacturing', while generating 'green collar manufacturing jobs' and reducing Australia's reliance on nature resources. In addition, the transition to a circular economy would 'reduce risks in relation to pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change'.
1.35Modelling completed in 2021 found that 'Australia could generate $1,860 billion in direct economic benefits over twenty years and save 165 million tonnes of [carbon dioxide] CO2 per year by 2040', with a move by government and industry to a circular economy.
Recycling and Waste Reduction Act
1.36The Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 (RAWR Act) was implemented following the agreement of the Australian, state and territory governments, and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), that the export of waste glass, plastic (including processed engineered fuel), tyres and paper be regulated by the Australian Government.
1.37The RAWR Act has a number of objects, including:
to reduce the impact on human and environmental health of products, waste from products and waste material;
to realise the community and economic benefits of taking responsibility for products, waste from products and waste material; and
to develop a circular economy that 'maximises the continued use of products and waste material over their life cycle and accounts for their environmental impacts'.
1.38 The RAWR Act provides that these objects are to be achieved by:
(a)regulating the export of waste material to promote its management in an environmentally sound way; and
(b)encouraging and regulating the reuse, remanufacture, recycling and recovery of products, waste from products and waste material in an environmentally sound way;and
(c)encouraging and regulating manufacturers, importers, distributors, designers and other persons to take responsibility for products, including by taking action that relates to:
reducing or avoiding generating waste through improvements in product design; and
improving the durability, reparability and reusability of products; and
managing products throughout their life cycle.
Review of the RAWR Act
1.39For the first time since its enactment, the RAWR Act is currently under review. Officials from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) advised the committee that the review would consider the findings of the Circular Economy Ministerial Advisory Group (CEMAG), and the findings of the Productivity Commission. Submissions to the review closed on 27 February 2025. The review is expected to be delivered to the minister for consideration in April or May of 2025.
1.40The terms of reference for the review suggest it will 'make recommendations to improve the efficiency and impact of the Act in addressing current and future circular economy needs, resource recovery and waste challenges', throughexaminationof:
limitations of current approaches to product stewardship;
whether waste export regulations are fit for purpose;
improving Australian Government mechanisms with which to respond to developing circular economy markets; and
how the Act operates against international and domestic obligations.
1.41There was some support offered during the inquiry for this review. The Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR), for example, expressed its hope the review 'might inform a better approach in terms of how fees are applied to our sector and how product stewardship might better work in stepping in to take responsibility for the waste that is generated in Australia'.
1.42The committee expects that the evidence received by its inquiry and the committee's recommendations be taken into consideration by DCCEEW as part of the RAWR Act review.
Jurisdictional responsibilities
1.43There are challenges to managing waste streams and recyclable products in Australia, due to the varying levels of government across the country, the resulting regulatory fragmentation, and constitutional limits on the role of theCommonwealth.
1.44As will be shown throughout this report, the waste and resource recovery industry called for a stronger leadership role of the Australian Government. The long-term absence of nationally mandated waste reduction schemes and outcomes has left the industry frustrated, with suggestions that the Australian Government does not appear to take ownership of implementing lasting reform in this sector. The committee considers these views further in Chapter 8.
1.45DCCEEW advised that 'states, territories and local governments are primarily responsible for and best placed to manage and regulate domestic waste and make critical decisions on recycling policy'. Notwithstanding this, DCCEEW noted that the Australian Government contributes in the followingcircumstances:
issues affecting multiple jurisdictions that would benefit from a coordinated approach, and where nationally harmonised policies, guidelines or standards cannot be achieved without Australian Government support
national issues where analysis supports Australian Government action as the most effective and efficient intervention, especially where there are risks posed by hazardous substances to human health and the environment
domestic market failures or absences of a market that require national policy, national partnership programs, or national-scale informationrequirements
obligations to engage in international conventions and treaties and administer legislation, or where international trade impacts circular economy outcomes.
Role of state and territory governments
1.46Management of waste by state and territory governments includes implementation of legislation, policy and regulation; strategy and planning; and permitting waste transport, storage, treatment and disposal operations. Some common themes and approaches across jurisdictions include the safe management of waste; implementing the National Waste Policy Action Plan (discussed later in this report); and transitioning to a more circular economy.
1.47Waste levies are imposed by state and territory governments, whereby landfill operators are required to 'pay some amount to their government for each tonne of waste deposited in landfill'. These levies can be a key driver in effective wastemanagement:
The additional fee pushes up the cost of landfill, increasing the attractiveness of recycling. Often some of the collected funds are used to support recycling infrastructure, programs or governance organisations.
Role of local governments
1.48Local governments are generally responsible for kerbside collections, public place waste management, and the provision of infrastructure for recycling and disposal. In rural areas, local governments are generally 'the primary owners and often operators of waste transfer stations, resource recovery facilities and landfills' while some regional and metropolitan local governments also manage waste and resource recovery infrastructure. Significant volumes of waste are collected by local governments:
In 2022-23, Australian local governments collected about 9.9 Mt of waste via kerbside bin services. These comprise 'dry' recycling, organics and residual waste (garbage) sent to landfill or mechanical biological treatment.
International obligations
1.49In addition to these domestic Australian responsibilities, Australia is committed to several international treaties and agreements regarding the export of waste. DCCEEW explained that Australia's involvement in international conventions and treaties guides the safe management of waste, chemicals and plasticpollution.
International Agreement to End Plastic Pollution
1.50In March 2022, United Nations (UN) Member States endorsed a resolution to End Plastic Pollution, and agreed, through an intergovernmental negotiating committee, to forge an internationally legally binding instrument by the end of 2024. Inreaching the agreement, Member States, including Australia, affirmed the 'urgent need' to:
…strengthen global coordination, cooperation and governance to take immediate action towards the long-term elimination of plastic pollution in marine and other environments, and to avoid detriment from plastic pollution to ecosystems and the human activities dependent on them.
1.51To date and since 2022, there have been five meetings of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on Plastic Pollution. Australia has attended all meetings of the INC, including the fourth meeting in Ottawa, Canada in April 2024 and the 'first part of the fifth session' in late 2024, in Busan, Republic of Korea. The 'second part of the fifth session' is scheduled to occur in August 2025, in Geneva, Switzerland.
1.52In its opening statement to the fifth session, Australia called for 'global obligations for harmonised design standards for plastic products', as well as 'a financial mechanism that mobilises finances from all sources to support the instrument's successful implementation'. Australia also called for an agreement which 'meets the needs of our region, particularly Pacific Island countries who are disproportionately impacted by the adverse impacts of plastic pollution'.
1.53Australia is also a signatory to the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution (HAC), which is 'committed to develop an ambitious international legally binding instrument based on a comprehensive and circular approach that ensures urgent action and effective interventions along the full lifecycle of plastics'. The HAC's 'common ambition' is to end plastic pollution by 2040.
1.54The INC meetings continue despite advice on DCCEEW's website that the fifth meeting, in the Republic of Korea, was 'set to be the final negotiating session', and despite the 2024 deadline for the legally binding agreement. The UN's draft report of the INC meeting in Busan makes clear there is some frustration from Member States on the lack of progress to date:
…many representatives expressed concern and disappointment at the limited progress made in the discussions, with many representatives, including some speaking on behalf of groups of countries, urging representatives to accelerate work on the text of the proposed instrument…
…Many representatives said that progress had been hindered by the approaches of other members to the negotiations, with several representatives saying that some members appeared to be prioritizing interests other than the negotiation of a successful instrument. Several representatives urged committee members to negotiate in good faith, which, said some representatives, had not been the case to date…
1.55Similarly, in December 2024, the Minister for the Environment and Water, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP, expressed her disappointment that the negotiations in Busan failed to reach an agreement. Minister Plibersek noted that the Australian Government had joined the HAC, and that the government would:
…continue to work with other nations, business, ENGO's [environmental non-governmental organisations] and civil society in pursuit of our commonambitions.
Plastic production is set to triple by 2060, and experts predict plastics in oceans could outweigh fish by 2050—making this treaty critical, especially for Pacific Island countries.
We're working towards an agreement that globally bans problematic plastics and harmful chemicals, creates universal standards and ends plastic pollution by 2040.
At home, we’re acting now by boosting domestic recycling capacity, phasing out single-use plastics and transforming packaging regulations.
Basel Convention
1.56The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention) was implemented in 1992 as a response to the discovery of toxic waste being imported from abroad, into Africa and other parts of the developing world. The Basel Convention restricts the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes, except where it is 'perceived to be in accordance with the principles of environmentally sound management'. The objective of the Basel Convention is to:
…protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects of hazardous wastes and other wastes requiring special consideration. Its scope of application covers a wide range of wastes defined as "hazardous wastes" based on their origin and/or composition and their characteristics, as well as four types of wastes defined as "other wastes"—household waste, incinerator ash, certain plastic wastes and certain electronic andelectricalwastes.
1.57In Australia, the Basel Convention is legislated by the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989. Also of note is the Waigani Convention, ratified by Australia in 1998, which implements aspects of the Basel Convention in the South Pacific.
1.58In terms of managing its consumption, trade, and waste responsibly, Australia has other international commitments for which it must meet certain requirements. These govern the:
safe international trade of hazardous chemicals;
control of persistent and harmful chemicals;and
protection of the ocean from sea-dumping and plastic pollution.
Parliamentary and other inquiries
1.59The importance and complexity of reducing waste and implementing effective recycling and circularity policies has been made clear through the many reports, analyses and targeted inquiries into various elements of waste disposal and resource recovery.
1.60In recent years, there has been significant examination of waste, resource recovery and the circular economy, with numerous inquiries still ongoing. These reports and inquiries include (but are not limited to):
CEMAG (the interim and final findings and recommendations of CEMAG are detailed later in this report);
Productivity Commission, and its current review into the opportunities in the circular economy (discussed later in this report);
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), which is conducting 'Ending Plastic Waste' research, aimed at reducing plastic waste entering the Australian environment, by 80percent by 2030; the CSIRO is examining several areas in relation to plastics, including:
upstream design;
resource recovery;
knowledge and data for managed and mismanaged plastic waste; and
global and education initiatives;
DCCEEW—Australia's Circular Economy Framework 2024.
1.61The committee's current inquiry also follows several previous and current parliamentary inquiries (not including legislative inquiries) that have examined similar or related matters, including:
2018 Senate Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry into the waste and recycling industry in Australia;
2020 Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 [Provisions] andrelatedbills;
2021 Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into the Product Stewardship Amendment (Packaging and Plastics) Bill 2019;and
2024 House of Representatives inquiry into plastic pollution in Australia’s oceans and waterways.
1.62While not discussed below, the committee also notes that other recent inquiries have canvassed similar topics, including a 2015 Senate Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry into the threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia; and a 2020 House of Representatives inquiry into innovative solutions in Australia's waste management and recycling industries.
1.63In addition, a House of Representatives inquiry into Food and Beverage Manufacturing in Australia, which commenced in March 2024 and concluded in February 2025, considered the circular economy, waste reduction and decarbonising, including packaging and food waste, in its terms of reference. Relevantly, this inquiry recommended the harmonisation of Australia's various container deposit schemes, and the development of policies to support reduced and recyclable food packaging with consideration to packaging design standards that encourage circular economy principles.
Senate inquiry into waste and recycling (2018)
1.64In June 2018, the committee tabled its report for its inquiry into the waste and recycling industry in Australia. Of relevance to the current inquiry, the report, titled Never waste a crisis: the waste and recycling industry in Australia, considered the role of the Australian Government in facilitating solid waste management, incentives and collection methods, and the destination of materials collected forrecycling.
1.65The committee made 18 unanimous recommendations to address deficiencies identified in the recycling industry, which the committee stated followed 'years of failure across all levels of government to make the policy decisions required to put the industry on a solid footing'.
1.66The committee put a particular focus on 'underlying problems in the recycling sector' which could 'no longer be ignored', in light of the significant 2017 announcement by the Chinese Government that imports of 24 types of waste would be banned, along with the introduction of stringent contamination controls on imported waste into China.
1.67The committee also highlighted the urgent need to transition to a circular economy:
…the Australian Government must act urgently to transition away from a linear economy to a circular economy which prioritises the collection, recovery and re-use of products, including within Australia. This transition must include a suite of regulatory and policy changes aimed at influencing behaviour, as well as investments in infrastructure and technology.
1.68The committee pointed to the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) agreement, in 2009, to a comprehensive National Waste Policy. The committee noted that the full and proper implementation of the National Waste Policy, with foreshadowed updates to include circular economy principles, was a way for the Australian Government to show leadership in this space. However, the committee observed that the National Waste Policy, despite agreement by all state and territory governments, at that time had not been implemented. The committee made three recommendations relating to: the prioritisation of a circular economy; the implementation of the National Waste Policy; and waste reduction and recycling instead of other methods like waste-to-energy.
1.69In order to reduce the volume of plastics requiring recycling in a circular economy, the committee recommended a phase out of petroleum-based single-use plastics by 2023 and the establishment of a plastics research centre.
1.70The committee further recommended that product stewardship schemes established under the Product Stewardship Act 2011 become mandatory schemes, and that schemes be established for tyres, mattresses, e-waste, and photovoltaic panels. Product stewardship schemes were also recommended to be enhanced by extending producer responsibility. The committee also recommended the re-establishment of the Product Stewardship Advisory Committee.
1.71In 2024, the Australian Government responded to the recommendations made in the committee's 2018 report, 'noted' the recommendations and provided the same response to each of the 18 recommendations: 'The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate'.
Senate inquiry into the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and related bills (2020)
1.72The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee (Legislation Committee) examined the bills which would become the RAWR Act, tabling a report in October 2020.
1.73There was unanimous support for the bills, with recommendations from the Legislation Committee that the government continue to work with state, territory and local governments on implementation of the RAWR Act, with a 'specific focus on achieving alignment of infrastructure, investment and data (definitions and reporting), as well as associated policy, guidelines and regulatory regimes'. The Legislation Committee also recommended the government 'should expedite' consideration of 'mandatory targets for the use of a percentage of recycled material'.
1.74The bills provided the framework for both the voluntary and mandatory product stewardship schemes which are currently in place and discussed later in this report. Evidence to the 2020 inquiry supported strengthening the mandatory stewardship provisions, including in circumstances where voluntary targets and standards were not achieved. To that end, in introducing the bill, the Environment Minister at that time (the Hon Sussan Ley MP), said that 'those industries who do not step up and do not take part [in voluntary] schemes can assume that the government will step in for them, and enforce its own regulatory scheme'.
1.75When the bills came before the Senate, several amendments were proposed by Senator Whish-Wilson, which would have introduced a mandatory product stewardship scheme for packaging and plastics, with specific plastics labelling requirements; prohibited certain plastics over time; and enabled rules to be made to require financial contributions from companies, to deal with particular classes of plastics. The amendments were unsuccessful, including the amendment to introduce mandatory product stewardship schemes which was negatived on a tied vote. Labor, the Greens and other crossbench senators were in support of the product stewardship amendment, with the Coalition and One Nation senators voting against it.
Senate inquiry into the Product Stewardship Amendment (Packaging and Plastics) Bill (2021)
1.76In early 2021, the Legislation Committee tabled its report into the Product Stewardship Amendment (Packaging and Plastics) Bill 2019, a private senator's bill introduced by Senator Whish-Wilson.
1.77The bill proposed to establish:
…a mandatory product stewardship scheme for manufacturers, importers and distributors of consumer packaging and certain single-use plastics; and prescribe[d] targets, prohibitions, design requirements, labelling requirements, and financial contributions in relation to packaging and products identified under the scheme.
1.78Evidence to the inquiry was 'strongly supportive of the intention of the bill to reduce plastic waste in the environment and drive reform in the waste recycling and manufacturing sectors'. While not supportive of the bill, in additional comments to the report senators from the Australian Labor Party noted that the intentions of the bill would best be delivered by government, accompanied by a regulatory impact statement, and said that:
In the spirit of national leadership, it simply does not make sense to have states and territories tackle such reforms without coordinated support of theFederal Government.
1.79The bill was surpassed by implementation of the RAWR Act, and lapsed at the end of the Parliament.
House of Representatives report on plastic pollution in oceans and waterways (2024)
1.80In May 2024, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water tabled its report for its inquiry into plastic pollution in Australia's oceans and waterways. The report, Drowning in waste, examined the effectiveness of: Australia's plastics management framework; engagement on this subject between the various layers of government; and community campaigns, and global initiatives to reduce plastic pollution in oceans andwaterways.
1.81The House committee made 22 recommendations to strengthen Australia's plastics management framework to minimise plastic waste ending up in oceans and waterways, incentivising the use of recycled materials in the production of new plastics, and strengthening the management of plastic already in theenvironment.
1.82The committee found that the National Plastics Plan 'is a disjointed compilation of goals, disappointingly some of which were already completed prior to the plan being developed and others that were not completed by their expected deadline'. The report also stated that the responsibility for plastic should be placed 'back onto plastics manufacturers'.
1.83Relevant to this inquiry, the House committee recommended that:
the National Plastics Plan be updated;
DCCEEW undertake a feasibility study into appropriate plastic disposal options for regional and remote areas;
DCCEEW investigate whether some of the National Packaging Targets 2025 should be mandated and work with industry to revise and strengthen the targets to ensure clearer and measurable goals;
national waste collection standards be established, with regional and remote areas without kerbside recycling in mind;and
plastic packaging and recyclability labelling be standardised andsimplified.
'Waste' vs 'resource'
1.84The committee heard that the term 'waste' is often applied to all portions of the recycling and reuse process. However, the committee received extensive evidence suggesting that current approaches to waste management and recycling should more properly consider the end products of recycling asa'resource'.
1.85The Australian Resources Recovery Council (ARRC), (formerly the National Waste and Recycling Industry Council; NWRIC), submitted that waste generated by society 'must be recognised in government policy as being a genuine resource that all must [be] recovered, recycled, and reused in their entirety across all jurisdictions'. The ARRC called for legislative amendment to change references to 'waste' to 'secondary commodity exports'.
1.86The name change from NWRIC to ARRC, reflects the organisation's strong position on this issue. In advising about the change, the ARRC reflected thatitwas:
…championing the call to our elected representatives and all policymakers to prioritise resource recovery as the main game if the nation is to achieve its ambitious waste diversion targets by 2030.
ARRC CEO [Chief Executive Officer], Rick Ralph, said…"Australia is projected to hit 81 million tonnes of generated waste by 2025. Our Council is leading and focused on how we can generate an alternate source of renewable and recycled materials, but we need our governments to come tothetable."
…"For too long the debate has focused on waste management and recycling performance and has not prioritised the bigger opportunity of the alternative resources our nation generates in its community andindustrialwaste."
1.87Mr Darren Thorpe, Managing Director of the APR Group, a paper and plastics recycler, also argued that once waste is placed in a commercial collected bin, it becomes a resource to which value is added via the recycling process. Mr Thorpe suggested that the 'more we call it "waste" the more we're not going to give it the respect that it deserves. We need to be calling it a resource, firstandforemost'.
1.88Ms Suzanne Toumbourou, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ACOR, argued that treating processed recycled commodities as waste added 'cost and delay to the trade of recycled products and fundamentally undermin[ed] investment in domestic recycling infrastructure'. She continued that it was important to distinguish between waste and recycled commodities to ensure recycled materials were not treated as 'waste'. MsToumbourou explained that:
When it's a recovered commodity that has value and a market to go to, it's not waste. We, the states and territories and even the federal government, need to get better as a country. In fact, we struggle with definition internationally as well. It is a priority, and our national resource recovery framework should help to lead the way in defining that distinction.
…
The absence of end-of-waste definitions hinders our sector, and a nationally harmonised resource recovery framework is needed to address this.
1.89The Waste Contractors and Recyclers Association of NSW (WCRA) likewise said that 'Australia's narrative in terms of waste, recycling and reuse must be reformed', with waste generated by society recognised in government policy as a 'genuine resource that must be recovered, recycled and reused in [its] entirety across all jurisdictions'. The WCRA concluded that:
There remains a constant disconnect in terms of state regulatory approval processes, public policy interference, and the lack of long-term planning for the siting of waste and recycling infrastructure. Resource recovery national policy and setting of future actions must be expanded to include the energy recovery opportunity.
1.90CEMAG reported to the Australian Government in December 2024 that other overseas jurisdictions are moving towards a circular economy focused on designing out waste and keeping resources in use:
Internationally, the policy focus has shifted from 'waste' to a 'circular economy'… Australia must adopt a similar approach, moving beyond the current National Waste Policy… Sustainable resource management has also become a major focus of high-profile multilateral agreements, including the G7 [Group of Seven] Alliance on Resource Efficiency, the G20 [Group of 20] Resource Efficiency Dialogue and the various partnerships and initiatives launched by the World Economic Forum.
The need for better data
1.91An overarching issue which hinders recycling, resource recovery and packaging outcomes across Australia is the lack of relevant data available to both government and industry stakeholders.
1.92It was argued throughout the inquiry that a lack of clear, targeted and timely data was impeding Australia's progress and investment in waste processing and recycling. The committee heard calls for improvements to the collection, timing and analysis of waste resource and recycling data, as outlined below.
Current sources of data
1.93Since 2010, the main source of national data on waste management and resource recovery has been the National Waste Report. Seven iterations of the National Waste Report have been released, with the most recent being the December 2024 version which was renamed the National Waste and Resource Recovery Report (2024 NWRR Report).
1.94The 2024 NWRR Report includes data for the 2022-23 financial year on Australia’s waste generation, source streams, materials and fates as well as resource recovery and recycling rates. Trend data is included back to 2016-17 to enable interannual comparison. The data was largely obtained from state and territory governments which collect the data from waste operators and localgovernments.
1.95The 2024 NWRR Report is available in a web-based format with interactive data viewers, allowing users to filter and view the data in different ways including by jurisdiction, source stream and waste category.
1.96The National Waste and Resource Recovery Database 2024 was released alongside the 2024 NWRR Report and collates data on Australian waste quantities for 2006-07 to 2022-23 in a format that allows users to do their own data analysis.
1.97Other key sources of national waste and resource recovery data include thefollowing:
The Australian waste and resource recovery infrastructure database which records the facilities involved in waste and resource recovery. The data can be sorted by location, management and/or infrastructure type.
The waste export data viewer which contains data from 2017-18 to 2023-24 on exports of waste and recycled materials. The data is searchable by jurisdiction, material type and tonnages.
The organics kerbside collections services data viewer which helps users find the local government areas that have implemented an organics kerbside collection service.
The Recycling Modernisation Fund data viewer which provides detailed information on funded projects and is searchable by jurisdiction, location, material type and facility type.
The Australian Plastics Flows and Fates Study whichhas been conducted annually since 2000 and captures rates of plastic consumption, recycling and recovery across all polymer types and applications.
The Packaging Consumption and Recovery Data Report published by the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) which quantifies packaging placed on market, packaging recovery rates, recycling potential, reuse and losses in the system.
Issues with existing data
1.98Inquiry participants pointed out a range of issues with existing data sources, including incomplete or missing data, delays and lack of transparency in the release of data, and difficulties in aligning data from different jurisdictions.
1.99For instance, when asked in May 2024 about the proportion of Australian packaging in supermarkets that is currently made from Australian recycled material, the CEO of ACOR stated:
I don’t have that information. Part of the issue is that we're not seeing good data yet. Ideally, a traceability framework could help to support this, but we're not seeing good data on the difference between domestic recycled material and imported recycled material…
1.100In its submission, ACOR explained that there is 'poor data and information on recycling' because:
Data capture has typically conflated waste management and recycling, so that the true capacity for recycling and re-manufacturing infrastructure in Australia is not well mapped and the markets for recycled materials are not well understood or supported. Logistics operators, aggregators, processors and remanufacturers are often defined as one group in datasets, masking genuine capacity and the value chain required to deliver recyclingoutcomes.
1.101Similarly, an independent audit by the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) and the Boomerang Alliance found there is generally poor data collection regarding Australian supermarkets' plastic footprints, and although supermarkets provide some packaging data to APCO that data is not made publicly available. The audit report suggested that this lack of transparency around plastic packaging data meant that supermarkets could avoidaccountability:
For too long, supermarkets and other retailers have not been held accountable for the amount of plastic packaging they place on the market in Australia. While supermarkets are required to report on their progress towards the 2025 National Packaging Targets, this data is not made publicly available. Details contained within annual sustainability reports highlight cherry-picked achievements without providing verifiable evidence that it has reduced plastic packaging in real terms.
1.102MRA Consulting Group also made the point that lengthy delays in the release of data undermine the public's ability to hold governments to account for progress towards targets outlined in the National Waste Policy Action Plan. Considering the time lag in reporting waste data, MRA Consulting Group noted 'we will probably wait until 2032 or 2033 to look backwards to 2030 to see if we achieved the targets. That looks like a free pass on accountability…'.
1.103Ms Gayle Sloan, CEO of the Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia (WMRR), told the committee that a 'lack of understanding of the data and the material flows'—including how much waste Australia imports, circulates and manufactures—'has been a real hamper in relation to how we've grown the sector'.
1.104A Branch Head within DCCEEW’s Circular Economy Division acknowledged industry concerns that 'data is hard to obtain', and explained this was partially due to 'there being commercial data that is held by businesses and different data that is held by state and territory governments'.
1.105Indeed, the March 2024 edition of the Australian Standard for Waste and Resource Recovery Data and Reporting states that the differences in data collection practices between the states and territories have created complications for national reporting:
To a significant extent, state and territory data systems have developed independently—each has its own set of classifications, terminology and reporting systems that may be embedded in legislation, policy, regulation and licences. Differences between these systems increase costs and uncertainty for national waste businesses, make it harder to align state and territory policies, and increase the difficulty in compiling national reports and data sets.
Calls for improved data
1.106Submitters and witnesses called for more comprehensive, timely and transparent data collection and reporting to enable the evaluation of existing waste management and recycling policies and to inform future policydevelopment.
1.107In its final report, CEMAG suggested that as part of a circular economy and to improve data, a legislative framework should mandate annual disclosures of key metrics from relevant businesses, including 'resource inefficiency, waste generation and the disposal of unsold goods'. CEMAG argued that:
Mandatory reporting would enhance transparency, enable effective tracking of resource flows and hold businesses accountable for their environmental impact across value chains. Consistent, comprehensive data would also support better policymaking, create a level playing field and drive industries to prioritise sustainability.
1.108The Productivity Commission (PC) released its interim report in March 2025, for its inquiry into Australia's circular economy. The PC found that limited system-wide data on circular economy progress meant that governments were less able to make well-informed decisions about circular activities and policies. As it continues its work, the PC will consider different approaches to the collection of data, including which agencies should collect (or estimate) the data, and the consistency of data across states and territories needed for circular economyprinciples.
1.109The AMCS and the Boomerang Alliance recommended that governments should 'require supermarkets to transparently report plastic packaging data and make it available to the public' as this would help assess supermarkets' progress against plastic packaging reduction targets.
1.110Additionally, the Australian Food and Grocery Council, representing Australia’s food, beverage and grocery manufacturing sector, argued that:
Enhancing existing registries to fulfil the increasing data needs of waste and recycling policies and acquiring circular metrics like recycled content percentage and material composition in a uniform manner for the industry is crucial. Consistency in data collection is paramount, whether it pertains to product stewardship requirements, packaging data reform, recycled content traceability, or export ban purposes.
1.111MRA Consulting Group emphasised the importance of data being released in a timely manner, 'as close to real time as possible', to enable accurate assessment of whether Australia is on track to achieving the National Waste Policy ActionPlantargets.
1.112DCCEEW officials advised that there are cross-jurisdictional efforts underway aimed at improving the data and evidence base for industry. The committee heard that there is a specific data working group sitting under the Resource Recovery Reference Group, comprising senior representatives from Commonwealth, state and territory and local governments as well as industry groups and non-government organisations. This working group is:
…looking specifically at waste and resource recovery data, including how we get better data, how we make sure it's collated consistently, how we make sure we're all using consistent definitions and how we provide it on a more frequent basis and in a more accessible format.