Chapter 4Product stewardship schemes
4.1Product stewardship schemes enable a product's lifecycle impacts to be managed in terms of their effects on the environment and health. They also promote the circular economy and help to address waste generated in a range of industries.
4.2This chapter discusses product stewardship (including extended producer responsibility) schemes and targets, and submitter and witness views on their effectiveness and operation. Waste and recycling industry stakeholders canvassed a variety of policies and actions which could be taken to address issues in the waste and resource industry, and which are addressed throughout this chapter, including:
progress on mandated product stewardship schemes;
improvement of the viability of product stewardship schemes; and
the role and necessity of traceability frameworks.
4.3The next chapter focuses more specifically on packaging stewardship—as a subset of product stewardship—and goes into greater detail on specific packaging issues, such as those around plastics, mandatory packaging requirements and the inclusion of recycled content in Australian packaging.
Product stewardship schemes
4.4Product stewardship schemes support environmentally sound management of products and material over their life cycle, including at the end of their useful life. Product stewardship recognises that everyone who imports, designs, produces, sells, uses and disposes of products has a shared responsibility to reduce the environmental and human health and safety impacts of those products.
4.5According to the Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence, a not-for-profit group that seeks to reduce waste generation, product stewardship 'aims to drive environmentally beneficial outcomes through good design and clean manufacturing, including the use of components and materials that are easier to recover, reuse, and recycle'.
4.6Australian environment ministers have agreed that product stewardship schemes play a key role in holding producers accountable for managing their waste and driving circularity. These schemes can be:
government accredited industry-led voluntary schemes;
co-regulatory arrangements between industry and government; or
mandatory schemes under law.
4.7These various scheme formats are described below:
Voluntary schemes encourage stewardship, without regulation. Voluntary accreditation arrangements 'must meet specific requirements to ensure [industry carries] out their activities in a transparent and accountable manner'.
Co-regulatory schemes are delivered by industry and regulated by the government. The regulations 'specify outcomes to be achieved, and identify liable parties that are responsible for those outcomes'. Liable parties join a co-regulatory arrangement.
Mandatory schemes place legal obligations on parties to take certain actions in relation to a product (for example, arranging for the recycling of products at end-of-life, or banning certain substances or materials from use in products).
4.8The Product Stewardship Act 2011 was in force from 2011 but was repealed and ceased to have effect after 15 December 2020. Product stewardship schemes in Australia are now controlled under the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 (RAWR Act) and associated rules. The RAWR Act provides the legislative framework for voluntary product stewardship, for accreditation of voluntary schemes, and for co-regulatory and mandatory stewardship schemes. It also provides for penalties for non-compliance in any authorised arrangements, and for the relevant minister to revoke or amend accreditation.
4.9Applications for accreditation can be submitted to government at any time, with accreditation lasting five years. The RAWR Act provides that the minister can table a statement in Parliament regarding the operation, performance, and coverage of accredited arrangements. The Act also requires the yearly publication of a product stewardship priority list, to identify the products and materials most in need of industry-led product stewardship action (discussed later in this chapter).
4.10Government accredited industry-led voluntary schemes include arrangements for recycling mobile phones, tyres, large plastic bags, batteries, plastics and packaging, newspapers and magazines, aluminium cladding, and plastic paint pails.
4.11There are several co-regulatory arrangements for recycling televisions, computers, and printers (in addition to the plastics and packaging scheme mentioned above).
4.12Despite having legislative frameworks for mandatory product stewardship since 2011, Australia currently has only one national mandatory product stewardship scheme—the Product Stewardship for Oil (PSO) Scheme—aimed at increasing the recycling of used motor oil (discussed towards the end of this chapter).
4.13In addition, the National Product Stewardship Investment Fund, administered by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), provided financial support to set up new product stewardship arrangements or improve existing ones. It also funded the Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence through a $1 million grant.
Voluntary vs mandatory product stewardship
4.14There was broad acknowledgement of the importance of product stewardship schemes in Australia, including voluntary schemes, and the role of such schemes in a circular economy. Many submitters pointed to the container deposit schemes (CDS) in place across the country at the state level, as an example of successful mandatory product stewardship.
4.15However, the inquiry heard considerable and widespread concerns that voluntary product stewardship schemes are largely ineffective, due to the lack of consequences for non-compliance, lower recovery rates, and limited resourcing. Accordingly, there were calls to make product stewardship schemes mandatory in Australia.
The limits of voluntary schemes
4.16Professor John Thwaites gave evidence that the Circular Economy Ministerial Advisory Group (CEMAG) 'heard time and time again that [voluntary product stewardship schemes] weren't working, because they weren't mandatory'. Professor Thwaites noted that free-rider issues 'meant that the companies doing the right thing were essentially subsidising those that weren't'. Consequently, he expressed the need for mandatory schemes 'that all companies have to comply with so you've got a level playing field'.
4.17CEMAG's final report to the Australian Government emphasised that 'voluntary schemes face challenges with set-up costs and free rider issues' and pointed out that, in contrast to Australia's reliance on voluntary product stewardship schemes, 'other developed countries with successful product stewardship schemes have tended to apply more mandatory approaches'. CEMAG therefore recommended that a priority of any new National Circular Economy Policy Framework should be to implement mandatory product stewardship 'in a way that increases the focus on mandatory participation, reporting, measurement and governance principles'.
4.18The Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) and WWF Australia similarly suggested that 'voluntary frameworks have been in place in Australia for 20years and have not driven the market quickly enough to address issues of product recyclability'.
4.19Some submitters, such as MRA Consulting Group, pointed to lower recovery rates associated with voluntary schemes, which only address small tonnages in comparison to mandatory schemes which 'have consistent recovery rates above 60 per cent'. By way of example, it noted that voluntary schemes for tyres and batteries were 'capturing more than 15 per cent of product placed on market' and 'the remaining 104 schemes…have a recovery rate of less than 10 per cent'.
4.20The Total Environment Centre submitted that product stewardship schemes 'only target finite aspects of the environmental damage caused by their products…without addressing impacts of production, transport, product disposed of outside the scheme, including legacy waste'. This was echoed by the Boomerang Alliance which noted that voluntary schemes 'do not include responsibility for the entire lifecycle of a product'.
4.21In line with the evidence of Professor Thwaites, the Total Environment Centre pointed out that voluntary schemes effectively penalise organisations that join while 'less reputable competitors avoid incurring the additional cost'. Boomerang Alliance also highlighted the lack of sanctions or penalties for non-compliance in voluntary schemes.
4.22Similarly, Re.Group observed that when engaging in voluntary schemes, the desired outcomes would not be achieved as only the 'good actors' are at the table, trying to do the right thing—the 'bad actors…are undercutting the people who are trying to do the right thing'.
4.23EcoCycle expressed the view that co-regulatory and voluntary product stewardship schemes lacked 'proper funding'. EcoCycle argued that insufficient funding placed:
…undue pressure on recyclers who bear the financial risks associated with investing in specialised operations and technology to handle the ever-changing materials used by manufacturers. The process of reclaiming valuable commodities does not sufficiently cover the costs of assets, collection, transportation, and recycling, creating high exit barriers and dependency on the schemes. Furthermore, the recovered commodities are subject to international price fluctuations and cannot be relied upon to significantly contribute to operational cost recovery.
4.24The Waste, Recycling Industry Association of Queensland (WRIQ) observed that while some product stewardship schemes were 'working brilliantly', others were not operating as well. Ms Alison Price, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the WRIQ, suggested that industries better at advocacy 'start to drive the outcomes of the product stewardship scheme', with their driver being to 'reduce the cost of that [scheme] so they don't add as much cost to their products'. MsPrice detailed the outcomes of such an approach, stating:
What that results in is sometimes some subpar recycling outcomes, where, if you're always driving to the lowest possible cost, you're going to get the lowest common denominator in terms of recycling outcomes. That is, for me, the big weakness in product stewardship schemes. You see these schemes that are being developed by people that come from outside the industry and don't have that experience. They're reinventing the wheel, attempting to learn how to recycle on the fly, with a government mandate to do so. It's not always creating the best outcomes, even though it is very important for our community to have those schemes.
4.25Conversely, the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) pointed to MobileMuster—a government accredited, voluntary product stewardship scheme for old mobile phones—as an example of a successful voluntary scheme. Through MobileMuster's recycling process, the AMTA advised that over 95percent of the materials in returned mobile phones are recovered. The AMTA argued that MobileMuster's voluntary nature enabled it to respond well to evolving environmental needs and technological changes. Through MobileMuster:
…both liable and non-liable parties have come together, on a voluntary basis, to take collective action and drive the mobile telecommunications industry towards a more sustainable and circular economy.
Calls for government regulation
4.26Many submitters and witnesses recommended that Australia follow international examples and implement mandatory product stewardship schemes, citing the success of the state-based mandatory CDS (Box 4.1) and mandatory PSO Scheme (discussed later in this chapter).
4.27Visy, a large Australian packaging and recycling company, told the committee there was an 'overwhelming consensus' across industry for government regulation of product stewardship. Visy explained that some companies had already made the 'principled decision' to implement product stewardship, choosing 'sustainability over cost'. Visy noted, however, the broader benefits of government regulation, stating that if the government 'regulates and makes rules, as opposed to guidelines, then everyone has to move at the same time, so no-one is comparatively [financially] disincentivised'.
Box 4.1 Container deposit schemes Various inquiry participants highlighted that CDS around the country have been effective at reducing container litter and encouraging recycling. Pact Group, a plastic recycling, reuse and packaging manufacturing company, noted that: The South Australian [container deposit] scheme, the first in Australia, has been running since 1977 and has resulted in an 80% return rate of containers. Since the scheme was introduced in 2017 in New South Wales, there has been 52% reduction in the volume of eligible container litter in 2020, more than 300,000 tonnes of materials were recycled. The committee heard that 'CDS demonstrates the power of mandated and properly funded product stewardship schemes', with Re.Group elaborating that: …strong product stewardship schemes will help fund the recovery of problematic wastes, improve product design to reduce recovery costs, and reduce the "free-rider" problem. Mandatory product stewardship is vital to resolving the problems presented by hazardous wastes such as lithium ion batteries, but also more commonplace materials such as product packaging, mattresses, tyres and paint (all of which have voluntary product stewardship schemes). Similarly, the Plastic Free Foundation argued that the success of state and territory CDS 'provides an excellent example of the importance of legislating product stewardship'. |
4.28A key recommendation of CEMAG's final report to the Australian Government is to introduce a new Circular Economy Act which would strengthen product stewardship provisions, and would:
…equip the Australian Government with a streamlined, agile and proactive tool to regulate the environmental performance of materials and products, including imports, in line with the priorities of the National Circular Economy Policy Framework.
4.29CEMAG argued that 'a stronger mandatory product stewardship framework will catalyse action across supply chains' and that national product regulation needed support by 'better monitoring and compliance'. CEMAG contended that 'without ongoing oversight, schemes are likely to fail even when backed by regulation'.
4.30Ms Sloan, the CEO of the Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia (WMRR), encouraged Australia to stop 'trying to reinvent the wheel', observing that products are already subject to stewardship by multinationals domiciled in the European Union (EU). Australia could be 'braver and bolder' and 'pick up a lot of that legislation, rather than continuing to develop our own'.
4.31Huhtamaki described what it saw as the prerequisites for any successful mandatory product stewardship scheme:
Any viable product stewardship scheme must include an economically viable and stable end market for the material. This requires a product or range of products that can utilise the recyclate, a market that demands these products and a collection / reprocessing network that satisfy this demand.
[Mandatory schemes] must be aligned with the packaging design regulations promoting materials with the least environmental impact and the capabilities of the resource recovery sector. Until this direction is clear any attempt to introduce such schemes may be misguided and result in adverse outcomes.
4.32The Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) was in support of mandatory product stewardship and stressed the importance of mandatory obligations throughout the supply chain. The LGAQ argued that:
…long term positive changes can only be expected if…obligations are put on the producer and importer of a product into the Australian economic zone. This is due to the producer being the only party able to make design choices that consider the whole-of-life impact of a product and optimise those.
4.33The Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR) suggested there were several limitations with the existing approach to product stewardship, arguing that the 'current system saddles recyclers with the burden of contamination and hazards from poorly designed products and irresponsible disposal practices'. Ms Toumbourou of ACOR called for 'fit-for-purpose mandated product stewardship schemes', which deliver real outcomes, and continued that:
Much more needs to be done to ensure that regulatory frameworks, including product stewardship, more comprehensively address responsibilities of those operating upstream.
4.34The Boomerang Alliance called for the conversion of 'all existing [voluntary and co-regulatory] product stewardship to mandatory schemes, and ensure all future [product stewardship] schemes are managed under mandatory arrangements'. Mr Jeffrey Angel, the Director of Boomerang Alliance, explained that mandatory schemes need outcomes and targets, and that the Australian Government has the legal frameworks for mandatory schemes already in place. Mr Angel argued that 'we have to overcome…the cultural and resource malaise inside the [Commonwealth] department [of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water]', and contended that:
…suppliers of products [should be] required to take full responsibility for their products through their entire lifecycle. We must review all current product stewardship policies and practices and matters regarding waste exports of plastic, glass, tyres and paper to confirm they comply with the principles of a circular economy. Commonwealth policies and practices must be supported with state and territory policies, such as bans on particular products and landfill disposal, state based EPR [extended producer responsibility] where necessary and the promotion of reuse of resources.
4.35Likewise, MRA Consulting Group argued that 'all schemes need to be mandatory to have any real and lasting effect', and that Australia should start by legislating that product developers 'consider the end-of-life fate—reuse, recycling, landfill—of their products'.
4.36The Law Council of Australia advocated for 'full scale mandatory product stewardship of all items imported to or produced in Australia', and for schemes to 'be backed by clearly communicated incentives—rather than simply penalties'.
4.37Minderoo called for co-regulatory schemes to 'have clear, legally binding requirements for producers to manage the lifecycle of their product', and for effective legislation that:
…sets out the scope of costs in the scheme, stimulates infrastructure development, develops markets (for example through mandatory recycled content) and promotes producer behaviour that drives more sustainable choices.
4.38Cleanaway offered strong support for mandated product stewardship and design schemes, arguing that the waste industry was not the producer of the waste itself but was 'left to deal with other people's problems'. MrBiddulph, Head of Corporate Affairs at Cleanaway, explained that focus should instead be on product stewardship and design 'to stop [production of] those multilayered products that are almost impossible to recycle'. Mr Biddulph cautioned, however, that supply surety was needed before companies felt confident making the considerable investments needed to establish processing facilities. For example, Cleanaway:
…recently announced an MOU [memorandum of understanding] with Viva Energy to investigate chemical recycling of hard-to-recycle plastics. But we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars, and, for Cleanaway to invest that sort of money, we would wait for mandatory packaging and regulations before we make that investment.
4.39As will be highlighted later in this report, the government has recently completed consultation on packaging regulation reform, where over 80 per cent of respondents preferred Commonwealth regulation of packaging—and 65percent supported an EPR scheme with mandatory requirements. Respondents were also in strong support of:
establishing an approach that supports the transition to a circular economy for packaging in Australia;
a national ban on a limited set of problematic packaging inputs (for example, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances);
mandatory national minimum recycled content thresholds;
mandatory on-pack recyclability labelling obligations; and
nationally consistent approaches across related systems (for example, CDS and kerbside recycling).
4.40While submitters broadly supported product stewardship schemes and their objectives, various other suggestions were put forward about how such schemes could be improved in Australia—beyond making such schemes mandatory.
4.41ACOR, for example, suggested that product stewardship schemes must:
…better manage inherent conflicts of interest and genuinely invest in real recycling outcomes, especially in areas that pose an existential risk to the entire recycling supply chain such as highly combustible, loose and embedded batteries—where the ongoing hazards faced by our sector have not yet been met with a sufficiently urgent regulatory intervention.
4.42The Waste Contractors and Recyclers Association of New South Wales (WCRA) stated that product stewardship schemes were 'commendable in their intent' but required 'significant reform to fulfil their role in the circular economy'. The WCRA suggested that the facilities to process the materials collected through these schemes were lacking and struggled to find end-user markets, 'especially in the face of cheap international imports'.
Extended producer responsibility schemes
4.43Extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes are a type of product stewardship arrangement that 'places primary responsibility on the producer, importer and sometimes the seller of the product'. Through EPR schemes, 'producers or importers are required to fund activities to reduce the environmental, health and safety impacts of a product'.
4.44The difference between EPR and product stewardship was explained by the LGAQ:
While product stewardship schemes involve approaches to better manage the impacts of products and materials on the social, economic and environmental values of a country, the producer responsibility schemes involve a specific type of product stewardship that places the primary responsibility on the producer of a product.
4.45DCCEEW, in reference to an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) policy paper, stated that EPR schemes are:
…designed to promote the integration of environmental costs associated with goods throughout their life cycles into the market price of the products.
…an EPR scheme is characterised by:
the shifting of responsibility (physically and/or economically; fully or partially) upstream toward the producer and away from municipalities
the provision of incentives to producers to take into account environmental considerations when designing their products...
4.46Some EPR schemes exist in Australia, such as CDS implemented by states and territories. Arguments in favour of mandatory EPR schemes are discussed below.
Support for mandatory extended producer responsibility schemes
4.47Various submitters supported the introduction of mandatory EPR schemes. For example, the AMCS and WWF Australia argued for establishing:
…mandatory extended producer responsibility schemes for the most challenging products on the market (with regard to pollution risk and toxicity as well as recyclability), with packaging being a first step. Draw on the EU experience and progress to implementation swiftly.
4.48Dr Kirkman, CEO of Veolia Australia and New Zealand argued that 'mandated producer responsibility schemes are critical' for Australia to reach its waste and resource ambitions. DrKirkman explained that this means producers, manufactures and retailers would need to ensure their products are recyclable. Further, a modulated fee depending on the recyclability of a product would help drive behaviour, together with truthful labelling. He explained:
You can deliver a bottle of water to someone in a plastic container that's almost 100 per cent recyclable, or you can put it in a container that's made of three different materials and write on it that it's recyclable…you can do it in a way which is recyclable, and you can do it in a way which isn't. That's the choice to be made. If you were influenced with a small fee, I think you'd make the right decision. And there'll be very little cost for people to make that switch.
4.49The LGAQ placed emphasis on the need for EPR schemes as they place 'primary responsibility on the producer of a product'. The LGAQ suggested translating Australia’s 'current work on mandated product stewardship schemes into well-regulated extended producer responsibility schemes'.
4.50Some submitters called for legislating EPR for all packaging. For example, Tetra Pak, a food processing and packaging company, highlighted that 'EPR delivers the highest recycling outcomes at the lowest cost to the economy', and 'creates a market for all collected and sorted materials, and is based on the net cost of managing each material at its end-of-life'.
4.51Minderoo submitted that 'very few [Australian] schemes would satisfy the definition for extended producer responsibility (EPR), which is an embodiment of the pollution pays principle, mandatory and designed to ensure the accountability of producers and importers'. Minderoo pointed out that 'each state and territory has implemented (or is implementing) mandatory EPR in the form of container deposit schemes for beverage containers' but that this is 'problematic…as this creates different obligations for industry across jurisdictions, as well as triggering mutual recognition requirements'. Several submitters argued for the harmonisation of CDS across jurisdictions to 'minimise confusion and build community trust and industry confidence', and make things easier for network operators and the beverage industry.
4.52Similarly, the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (SA EPA) and Green Industries South Australia (GISA) argued for 'a regulated extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging'. The SA EPA and GISA pointed out that the:
…ability to address matters related to product design and product stewardship at a state level is critically limited by the [SA] Mutual Recognition Act 1993 (MR Act), economies of scale for manufacturing and national markets. The MR Act requires that if goods may be lawfully sold in one state or territory, then they may also be lawfully sold in any other state or territory without having to comply with requirements which would otherwise prevent or restrict the sale of the goods.
4.53Other submitters, such as Doctors for the Environment Australia, highlighted that the EU's policy frameworks set more stringent requirements by using EPR schemes to require manufacturers to take responsibility for the entire life cycle of their products, and that Europe has 'a greater number of mandatory EPR schemes in the EU compared to Australia'.
4.54Ms Sloan encapsulated stakeholders’ broad sentiment when she told the committee, 'we do need to move a lot faster'.
NSW product stewardship law reform
4.55The committee also received evidence that, in the absence of national guidance, the New South Wales (NSW) Government was progressing work more broadly on EPR schemes:
We have felt [extended producer responsibility] is the domain of the Commonwealth government, mainly to ensure that market consistency or reduce common market impact. However, in New South Wales we have started on this journey, starting with the container deposit scheme.
4.56On 18 March 2025, the Hon Penny Sharpe MLC, NSW Minister for Climate Change, Energy, Heritage and the Environment, introduced the Product Lifecycle Responsibility Bill 2025 to the NSW Legislative Council to establish a product stewardship framework, for brand owners of certain products.
4.57In introducing the bill, Minister Sharpe advised the NSW Government had 'been prompted to action by the lithium ion battery fire crisis' in NSW, and by the need to have a system which can 'easily and quickly regulate products causing problems, whether they are a risk to safety or…the environment'. Additionally, Minister Sharpe explained that the NSW Government selected a mandatory scheme in response to the shortcomings of existing Commonwealth voluntary product stewardship schemes, noting that 'appropriate regulatory oversight of product stewardship organisations…is not present in current voluntary schemes'.
4.58Minister Sharpe explained that the bill would establish a framework which:
…allows the Minister to prescribe, by regulation, requirements across the entire life cycle of a product, including the development, design, creation, production, assembly, supply, use or re-use, collection, recovery, recycling or disposal of the regulated product.
Too often and, in fact, most of the time, products are designed without any consideration of what will happen to them when their use has ended. This must change. Those who make the products and those who sell the products must take some responsibility for where they end up…
The bill provides a comprehensive suite of considerations and oversight improvements to ensure that brand owners take responsibility for products across their life cycles and risk is managed appropriately.
4.59While noting that the legislation would work 'alongside Commonwealth laws', the minister argued that the bill represented 'nation-leading reform' and in the first instance, would be used to apply a product stewardship framework for batteries. The minister advised that the bill had been drafted as a standalone Act, so that it 'can easily be used by other states and territories as a template to regulate product stewardship'.
4.60The bill was passed by the NSW Parliament on 28 March 2025. Its passage was widely applauded by stakeholders, with the CEO of WMRR expressing relief that the NSW Government 'will have the necessary regulatory tools to oversee stewardship organisations and enforce requirements across a product's entire lifecycle'. The WMRR stated that it:
…urgently calls on all Environment Ministers across the nation to act quickly to reduce the risks of battery fires and progress aligned state-led reforms for mandatory battery product stewardship, now that NSW has passed this vital piece of legislation.
Minister's product stewardship priority list
4.61The RAWR Act requires the publication of a product stewardship priority list before the end of each financial year, known as the Minister’s Priority List. It identifies the products and materials most in need of industry-led product stewardship action, with reasons for the product listing, actions required and expected time frames. If there is insufficient industry action, the RAWR Act provides for co-regulatory or mandatory measures.
4.62In announcing the priority list for 2022-23, Minister for the Environment and Water, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP, noted that:
…there are existing industry-led initiatives for tyres and mattresses recycling, but unfortunately not enough businesses are voluntarily participating. The addition of these products on the Minister’s product stewardship priority list means that if participation does not increase, the government will consider regulation.
…"The priority list makes our intentions clear—if industry does not act, the Government will."
4.63The 2023-24 priority list includes clothing textiles, tyres, plastics in health care products in hospitals, mattresses, and child car seats.
4.64Several products that were on the 2022-23 list are not on the 2023-24 list, as the government is progressing regulation for these categories 'due to insufficient progress by industry'. These categories include 'problematic and unnecessary single use plastics', electronic waste from photovoltaic systems, electrical and electronic products, and oil containers.
4.65Some of these categories are discussed below, while single use plastics are discussed as part of problematic waste streams in a later chapter.
Electronic and solar photovoltaic waste
4.66Photovoltaic (PV) systems are Australia's fastest growing waste stream. In October 2024 the Australian Government estimated that from 2019 to 2030, PV and battery storage system waste will increase 18-fold, from around 3500 tonnes to 62000 tonnes. More recently, DCCEEW representatives indicated that solar PV waste for 2024 was expected to total 52 000 tonnes and reach 90 000 tonnes by 2030.
4.67In response to slow progress to address electronic waste, the Australian Government has committed to develop a regulated product stewardship scheme to reduce waste from small electrical and electronic equipment (SEEE) and solar PV systems. The scheme's primary focus is to increase the recycling of end-of-life SEEE and solar PV systems, and to reduce waste, and encourage repair and re-use. Consultation on a proposed scheme closed in July 2023.
4.68DCCEEW gave evidence that as of May 2024, it was working on developing a regulatory scheme for PV panels, saying 'our intention…is to look at renewable energy systems, including, for example, other components of renewable energy systems in the future, but we'll start initially with PV panels'.
4.69A further update was provided by officials in February 2025, who indicated that through a six-month design process with industry 'it became clear that that [scheme] wasn't something that would be able to be industry led…which is why…we've progressed to looking at regulatory action from the Commonwealth'. Officials were unable to provide a timeframe for when regulation would be implemented.
4.70The committee puts forward its views and recommendations on these issues in the report's concluding chapter.
Oil containers
4.71The listing of oil containers on the 2022-23 priority list related to containers used to store oil, including containers made from plastic, metal and other materials. Industry was tasked with designing and implementing a product stewardship scheme for plastic oil containers by December 2023, however insufficient progress has been made. The Australian Government is currently considering regulation for oil containers through the packaging reform work mentioned above.
Specific product stewardship schemes
4.72This section details several product stewardship schemes operating in Australia and explores submitter views on specific product stewardship arrangements raised during the inquiry, including oil, tyres, batteries, textiles, clothing and footwear, food and organics and unprocessed scrap metal.
4.73This section also presents the evidence on the PSO Scheme, currently the only Commonwealth mandatory stewardship scheme in Australia.
Mandatory Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme
4.74The PSO Scheme is a mandatory product stewardship scheme introduced in 2001 to increase the amount of used oil recycled in Australia. Under these arrangements, incentives are paid to industry to encourage the management and re-refining of used and recycled oil. Oils include petroleum-based oils, and their synthetic equivalent, but do not include diesel or diesel blends.
4.75Mr Taylor of the WRIQ observed that the 'user-pays component' of product stewardship was 'very powerful' and pointed to the oil scheme as a successful model. Mr Taylor advised that in addition to the oil stewardship scheme being mandatory, it 'rewards outcomes'. He explained:
There's a real tendency to try to introduce schemes that maximise collection but don't cover the whole supply chain out to the end user and the finished product.
The real strength of the product stewardship for oil program is that it rewards the highest recovery and end use of that material. You can apply that concept to other materials—batteries, for instance. Obviously, we always need to compete with the international export parity but if there was a domestic scheme that rewarded the remanufacturing or the use of those recoverables from product stewardship schemes then it would be a way of killing two birds with one stone—stimulating the local economy—and that is what has happened with the waste oil program: we have a number of state-of-the-art used oil refineries in Australia that would compete with anything in the world.
4.76However, those engaged with the PSO Scheme raised some concerns with the operation of the mandatory scheme, suggesting these concerns have not been addressed through a much-needed scheme review. Southern Oil Refining (SOR) argued that the 'waste oil recycling industry plays a crucial role in waste management, resource recovery, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions'. However, in relation to the PSO Scheme, the SOR explained that:
The PSO is held up as a product stewardship scheme that largely works. Unfortunately, however, the lack of action with the PSO review has seen these settings becoming increasingly fragile. It is a mater of fact that the very small levy applied to new lubricants, and the levy benefits for the sector, have remained largely stagnant for over 20 years…
Most of the used oil refinery infrastructure in Australia is reaching end of operational lifespans and is now facing increased maintenance turnaround which impact on waste oil processing and escalation in operating expenses. Without this support that enables re-investment, we face significant risks that could reverse the progress made.
Tyres
4.77Since the last local manufacturing plant closed in 2010, all tyres are now imported into Australia. An industry-led Tyre Product Stewardship Scheme (TPSS), accredited by the federal government and authorised by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), manages the environmental and human health impacts of end-of-life tyres.
4.78The ACCC first authorised the TPSS in 2013 and re-authorised the scheme in 2018 and 2024. Industry participation in the TPSS to date has been minimal. Tyres have been listed on the Minister’s Priority List and work to determine next steps for regulation was expected to be finalised at the end of 2024.
4.79Tyre Stewardship Australia, which leads the current industry-led scheme, recommended that 'a co-regulatory or mandated product stewardship scheme for tyres and related rubber-based products is needed and should be introduced expeditiously'.
4.80In order to be successful, Tyre Stewardship Australia argued that the new scheme 'requires an operating environment characterised by a nationally consistent regulatory framework that supports and emphasises circular economy outcomes over just resource recovery' and that 'it must be made more profitable to process end-of-life tyres…for recycling than to bury them, stockpile them, dump them, or to recover them for export to be burnt as fuel'.
4.81The Australian Tyre Recyclers Association (ATRA), the national body for the used tyre collection and recycling sector, pointed out that the 'used tyre industry is already heavily regulated primarily at a State and Territory level', proposing that a 'co-regulated scheme build-on the existing regulatory framework of State and Territory laws, rather than create a new set of Federally legislated industry standards'.
4.82ATRA supported additional regulatory intervention 'that works with the existing market and…that tackles waste generators as the source of any residual problems of stockpiling and dumping'. ATRA noted that:
…while Product Stewardship is an important policy tool, it is not the only one and, in some instances may be an unnecessary overreach. Alternate policy approaches may be more appropriate, for example a relatively simple landfill ban on used disposal would substantially increase the recovery rate for this material, without a complex and highly interventionist federal regulation/ product stewardship scheme.
4.83The Tangaroa Blue Foundation submitted that:
In the case of tyres, the tyre stewardship scheme was implemented in 2014 to encourage sustainable use of Australia’s end-of-life tyres. However, there are multiple challenges associated with the tyre stewardship scheme. First, recycled tyre crumb rubber surfaces contain harmful and carcinogenic substances, which can be ingested by users, such as children. This research is especially concerning when considering the use of crumb rubber in children’s soft fall playgrounds within the Great Barrier Reef Catchment Area…consideration must be taken whether crumb rubber is a fit-for-purpose recycling product and whether the tyre stewardship scheme is working as intended. Unfortunately, this is not a circular economy as these microplastics are leaking into the environment but also because the end-of-life for these products, i.e., soft fall playgrounds, artificial turf, etc., is still landfill. Thus, the tyre stewardship scheme is a delay to landfill rather than a true circular economy.
Clothing
4.84In 2022-23, an estimated 860 kilotonnes (kt) of textiles, leather and rubber waste were generated in Australia. More than a third of this was clothing. In 2023 alone, 222kt of clothing ended up in landfill. In the same year, 1.4billion new items of clothing were sold in Australia, at an average of 53 items of new clothing, per person.
4.85In June 2023, Australia’s environment ministers agreed to the Australian fashion industry implementing a product stewardship scheme by 30 June 2024. It was agreed to closely monitor industry participation in this and other schemes and to take steps to regulate product stewardship outcomes, if required.
4.86On 1 July 2024, Australia's clothing product stewardship scheme commenced. Called Seamless and aimed at making Australian clothing circular by 2030, as of December 2024, over 300 organisations had registered as either Seamless members or supporters. The funds raised through Seamless will contribute to four priority areas: circular design; circular business models; closing the loop; and citizen behaviour change. Seamless is funded by a:
…financial contribution (levy) paid by stewards to the PSO [Product Stewardship Organisation], on each new item of clothing they place on the market. The PSO will be governed by an independent industry board with input from an Advisory Group.
4.87The contribution is 4c per unit and it is recommended that payments are based on clothing placed on the market in the previous period (quarter, half year or year).
4.88In launching Seamless, Minister Plibersek made clear that the scheme 'would be mandated if not taken up by enough businesses', stating: 'I want to see industry leadership…But if I don't see enough movements in a year, then I will regulate'.
Battery stewardship
4.89Batteries are generally classified as dangerous goods under relevant state and territory legislation. Product stewardship of batteries was a key concern of witnesses and submitters, particularly given the fire risks when batteries are incorrectly disposed of in household waste.
4.90Mr Mark Biddulph of Cleanaway stressed that batteries continued to be a major issue for the waste industry, suggesting that anecdotally, this may be related to the 'proliferation of disposable vapes'. Mr Biddulph explained how 'fire is possible through the entire waste journey':
The battery goes into a household bin, whether it is the recycling or the general waste bin. It gets tipped into the back of a truck. The compaction can cause that to ignite. That in the industry would be called a hot load. It puts our drivers and the general community at risk. Think about if you had a hot load in the middle of Melbourne city.
4.91Mr Rick Ralph of the Australian Resources Recovery Council (ARRC; formerly the National Waste and Recycling Industry Council) went so far as to say that 'embedded batteries are a cancer to us', with ARRC workers 'having to manage fires in recycling trucks' on a daily basis. Mr Ralph called for urgent action on batteries, in light of the harm they were causing the environment, industry assets and workers.
4.92Mr David Singh of Re.Group explained the real-world consequences of batteries in waste. He stated that within Re.Group's 10 materials recovery facilities (MRFs) across the country, there would be a 'smoulder caused by a battery or an embedded battery on a weekly basis', with two significant fires at the Dandenong MRF in Melbourne in the six months leading up to May 2024. He gave evidence that 'each of those fires costs [Re.Group] around $250,000'. Mr Singh called for a battery deposit scheme, and described the costs associated with batteries in waste:
One of the biggest costs is collecting all the water that is used to extinguish the fire and ensure the fire doesn't spread. It's all contaminated. It's got foam. It's got other retardants in it. That all then has to go for water treatment, and all the material [rubbish or recycling] that's wet has to go to landfill. And there is the lost production. It's a massive issue. Every year, when we renegotiate our insurance, the last piece that is negotiated is all the very fine wording around batteries, battery risk and battery fires and all the things that we're doing. So this is a massive, massive issue.
4.93Lithium Australia likewise pointed out the risks and hazards—to both people and the environment—caused by damaged batteries, including significant fires, 'some of which occur under the surface of landfills' and are 'extremely difficult' to extinguish. Lithium Australia recommended mandating the recycling of spent batteries and a national ban on the disposal of batteries to landfill. It concluded that Commonwealth leadership was needed for Australian jurisdictions to:
…implement a consistent set of regulations covering all stages of batteries, including the manufacture, use, collection, transportation, and end-of-life processing/recycling. Regulations must cover all individuals and businesses who may at any time possess large-format batteries, including warehousing of batteries before use.
State-based battery stewardship
4.94The B-cycle Scheme launched nationally in 2022. Operated via the Battery Stewardship Council (BSC) and authorised by the ACCC, B-cycle is the government accredited industry-led voluntary product stewardship scheme for batteries, supported by all jurisdictions. B-cycle offers drop-off points across the country for regular AA and other batteries; button batteries; rechargeable batteries, and easily removable batteries. However, B-cycle cannot accept mobile phone, laptop or television batteries, lead acid batteries, or exit/emergency light batteries.
4.95The Queensland Government has recently announced a $2 million program to support councils to expand battery collection points, and to work with industry to reduce fire risks. In making the announcement, the Queensland Government noted that there were more than 200 battery-related fires in Queensland, in the 12 months up to February 2025.
4.96In NSW, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has partnered with B-cycle to provide drop-off points for small household batteries. Batteries over five kilograms and lithium-ion batteries can be dropped off through other, more limited locations. NSW is trialling the collection of embedded batteries at select locations (including items such as electronic toothbrushes; smart watches; e‑bikes and vapes).
4.97A similar approach to NSW is taken in other jurisdictions for the collection of various batteries and other e-waste, such as in Victoria and Tasmania.
4.98With B-cycle’s current legal authorisation due to expire in September 2025, the BSC has lodged an application with the ACCC for a new authorisation to give effect to 'B-cycle 2.0'. The new scheme was designed in consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders and aims to address the key challenges faced by B-cycle 1.0, including through regulatory reform to address free riders. Adaptability and flexibility are also built into the new scheme design, to accommodate 'the rapidly shifting stewardship landscape'.
4.99The ACCC invited public submissions on BSC's application by 16 April 2025, with further consultation to be undertaken in July/August 2025 on a draft determination, before the final determination is made in August/September 2025.
NSW regulation
4.100As of August 2024, the NSW EPA was taking the lead in product stewardship reform for all batteries, in collaboration with Queensland and Victoria. In December 2024, NSW and Victoria presented a draft regulatory impact statement to an Environment Ministers' Meeting, which assessed options for mandatory measures to ensure batteries are safely managed throughout their life cycle. NSW committed to introduce mandatory battery regulation in 2025, in consultation with industry and local government.
4.101As detailed earlier in this chapter, product stewardship legislation—to be applied in the first instance to batteries—was introduced into the NSW Legislative Council on 18 March 2025 and passed the NSW Parliament on 28March 2025. As noted by Minister Sharpe, the NSW legislation has been drafted in such a way that it can apply in other states and territories. Minister Sharpe stated that other ministers and regulators were supportive of the NSW bill, and 'had expressed interest in adopting a similar approach'. The minister also noted the limitations of the Commonwealth's voluntary product stewardship approach:
Standardising this approach across States will be important for providing consistency nationally while also ensuring we have appropriate protections in place…
The second step of this process will be to draft regulations to make product stewardships mandatory for problematic products, including certain classes of battery where there is an existing Commonwealth stewardship accreditation. This allows the Government to act urgently to address battery fires and reduce free riders in the current system. The regulation would mandate product stewardship for batteries that are captured under existing Commonwealth voluntary product stewardship schemes… Another reason for pursuing this action in New South Wales is that the Commonwealth battery schemes are voluntary and, to date, they have seen very low recovery rates. The current schemes are not effectively able to address the challenge we face.
4.102The CEO of B-cycle, Ms Libby Chaplin, offered support for the nationwide expansion of the mandatory NSW scheme, noting a nationally consistent approach would reduce regulatory fragmentation. Ms Chaplin stated the NSW regulation of batteries was a 'pivotal moment for battery recycling in Australia' and noted that B-cycle had been 'calling for stronger regulation for some time now to eliminate free riders and ensure safe and sustainable battery disposal'.
4.103B-cycle stated that it would work closely with the NSW Government to 'advocate for national consistency' and 'ensure a harmonised approach to battery stewardship across Australia'. It highlighted that the NSW legislation is:
…specifically designed so that it can readily be adopted by other jurisdictions. This important legislation is paving the way for a nationwide, government-backed approach to battery recycling.
The need for national leadership
4.104The committee heard that some jurisdictions are progressing their own regulations around batteries and e-waste because they cannot wait for the Australian Government to act given the risk of battery-related fires.
4.105Further, despite state and territory approaches to managing battery and other e-waste and the B-cycle co-regulatory voluntary scheme, there remains no overarching, mandatory national regulation or product stewardship scheme for batteries. Noting the implementation of B-cycle, batteries were removed from the Minister's Product Stewardship Priority List from 2021-22 onwards.
4.106In mid-2024, DCCEEW told the committee that the 'collection, storage and movement of batteries is a very serious issue', which was 'on the government's radar'—including addressing issues with a lack of collection infrastructure and safe storage places. DCCEEW advised in early May 2024 that the Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR) was developing a national battery strategy, examining manufacturing and recycling capacity as part of the strategy's development—while pointing out that the Commonwealth's responsibility was administration of international agreements concerning the global movement of batteries, namely the Basel Convention.
4.107DISR released the National Battery Strategy (NBS) on 23 May 2024, as part of the Future Made in Australia program. The NBS includes the vision that 'by 2035, Australia is a globally competitive producer of batteries and battery materials, providing secure and resilient battery supply chains'. The NBS was 'developed in consultation with industry, researchers, unions, state and territory governments, and the community', and supported financially by:
…the $523.2 million Battery Breakthrough [administered by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency] that will provide production-linked incentives to Australian battery manufacturers. This initiative will boost economic resilience by building capability in high value areas of competitive advantage across the battery value chain. Additionally, the $20.3 million Building Future Battery Capabilities measure will build future battery industry skills and capabilities and strengthen national collaboration.
4.108In September 2024, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency released a consultation paper, seeking stakeholder feedback on program outcomes, design features and focus areas of Battery Breakthrough. Written submissions closed in October 2024.
4.109In early 2025, DCCEEW told the committee that in relation to product stewardship for batteries, work was progressing at a state level. Ms Bird of DCCEEW explained that through consultation on the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme:
…batteries came up as a very specific and primary concern…with states and territories having the predominant lead. [The states and territories] are experiencing a lot of these issues [with batteries] most directly in their own systems. It was a matter of urgency for them, which is why New South Wales is taking that forward.
4.110Evidence to the inquiry expressed disappointment at the lack of mandated, national regulation on this issue. For example, the Director of the Boomerang Alliance, Mr Jeffrey Angel, told the committee that a lack of national leadership to address batteries was a major concern:
…the Commonwealth [has] clearly given up as the leader and key states, in particular, New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria rebelled and they are now urgently developing a response to an emergency situation and anticipate product responsibility plans by the end of the year [2024] to combat the fire risk to the entire collection and recycling infrastructure.
4.111Mr Angel noted that continued delays and inaction in developing national guidance would mean that states and territories have no choice but to take independent action, despite the risk that 'we may end up with a multitude of state based schemes':
If the end result of the debate about a circular economy on packaging or batteries is, 'The Commonwealth is not doing it, so we're not going to do anything,' that's a completely unacceptable conclusion, and states will need to act unilaterally.
4.112In August 2024, Ms Sloan of the WMRR pointed out that the NSW minister had indicated they would introduce legislation regarding batteries if the federal government did not act. As noted above, NSW has since pressed forward with legislation to implement a mandatory, government-regulated framework for product stewardship, which has been designed for use by other states and territories as model legislation to regulate product stewardship.
4.113Lithium Australia cautioned that Australia should 'not offshore the responsibility of safe handling and disposal of batteries and ought to implement a phased ban on export permits for batteries and e-waste'. To support this, Lithium Australia called for batteries and/or e-waste to be classified under the RAWR Act as a Regulated Waste Material.
4.114The ARRC called for a mandatory, fit-for-purpose product stewardship scheme for lithium-ion batteries and 'the immediate ban of indiscriminate and unauthorised disposal of these forms of batteries in all waste and recycling bins'.
4.115Mr Biddulph suggested that an education program was needed—to be developed between government and industry—so that the public understood that batteries should not be put into bins, while also providing convenient battery disposal facilities with suitable reprocessing facilities: 'there needs to be capacity for these batteries to go somewhere to be recycled'.
4.116The committee presents its view and recommendations around battery stewardship in Chapter 8.
Unprocessed scrap metal
4.117It is estimated that Australia exports over 1 million tonnes of unprocessed ferrous scrap metal annually. This unprocessed scrap metal includes an estimated 267600 to 321200 tonnes of attached waste materials such as glass, plastic, textiles and tyres.
4.118A large portion of Australia's scrap metal is exported to developing countries, with India, Indonesia and Vietnam receiving between 50−60 per cent of Australia's scrap metal exports, and a further 35−40 per cent exported to Bangladesh, Taiwan, Thailand and Malaysia.
4.119It was submitted by the Sell & Parker Group, an Australian metal recycler, that, once exported, ferrous scrap is 'either charged directly to a steel furnace or crudely processed', and that 'waste is burned, with little environmental oversight'. Sell & Parker observed that:
As a result of the export of the unprocessed ferrous scrap, the Australian steel industry currently imports processed steel scrap metal to replace the exported unprocessed scrap metal to meet its needs as it moves to decarbonise steel manufacturing processes. While this addresses the decarbonisation of the steel making, it comes at a financial cost compared to consuming local scrap.
4.120Various submitters called for a national ban on the export of unprocessed scrap metal, citing a range of environmental, social and economic benefits. These submitters also highlighted that a ban would lead to greater policy consistency by treating unprocessed scrap metal in line with the treatment of other waste streams under the RAWR Act and related rules.
4.121In a report prepared for the ARRC, it was found that the retention of Australian ferrous scrap metal for processing locally is an 'important economic and environmental opportunity for Australia'.
4.122Similarly, the WCRA contended that regulating the export of unprocessed scrap metal could reduce emissions and support local industries. It noted that Australia has the capacity to process the scrap metal currently being exported, with the revenue from state landfill waste levies potentially covering these costs.
4.123Modelling commissioned by the ARRC and the Australian Steel Institute found that processing scrap material in Australia provides a higher value add and employment contribution to the Australian economy compared to unprocessed exports:
For every 10,000 tonnes of ferrous scrap metal, scrap metal processors create $4,840,358 in value add and 37.2 jobs. By contrast, unprocessed ferrous scrap metal exporting businesses only create $1,344,544 in value and 10.3 jobs. As a consequence of the smaller value add and employment contribution, unprocessed scrap exports leads [sic] to a foregone $374.3 million of value add to the Australian economy and 2,877 fewer Australian jobs.
4.124The Waste and Recycling Industry Association of Western Australia called for the federal government to 'formally investigate regulating unprocessed ferrous scrap metal exports', to:
…significantly reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, to preserve and create new Australian jobs, to help secure the future of the Australian recycling and sovereign steel industries and to enhance Australia’s overall environmental duty of care.
4.125Steel manufacturers, such as BlueScope, argued that a restriction on exports of unprocessed scrap metal would be consistent with the government’s policy objectives, and support Australian steel manufacturers who are 'having to import scrap to supplement the limited scrap available domestically'. Bluescope Steel also pointed out that 71 countries have now either banned, or are placing limits on, the exports of steel scrap.
4.126Waste and recycling businesses, such as Sims Metal and EcoCycle, identified the benefits in supporting the development of the Australian 'green steel' industry. InfraBuild likewise argued that prohibiting the export of unprocessed scrap metal aligns with key objectives of the RAWR Act, including the promotion of a circular economy.
4.127This was echoed by the Australian Steel Institute, which argued the legislative tools already exist to prohibit the export of unprocessed steel scrap, in alignment with government policy goals. The institute suggested that by utilising existing policy levers, the industry's 'supply chain members will gain much greater circular economy, environmental and decarbonisation benefits'.
