Chapter 8Committee views and recommendations
An industry still in crisis
8.1In 2018, when this committee examined Australia's waste and recycling industry, it found a strong willingness in the community and across industry to recycle, repurpose and reduce waste. Despite this, the committee concluded there was a distinct lack of suitable and enduring recycling and waste management policies, infrastructure and investment.
8.2The committee at the time concluded that there was a crisis in waste management, 'because Australia has grown complacent'—lagging far behind other jurisdictions and failing to invest in the proper development of a circular economy. To address the crisis, the committee made 18 unanimous recommendations to significantly improve recycling rates and resource recovery in Australia.
8.3In the years since, many of the committee's 2018 recommendations remain unaddressed. The evidence received by the committee in 2024 and 2025 is much the same as 2018—suggesting little has changed in practice. Australia is still not managing its waste and resources effectively, efficiently or in ways that improve environmental outcomes. This is despite community sentiment for a zero-waste future and for effective recycling and reuse schemes remaining strong. The lack of effective action has also resulted in missed opportunities for new economic, infrastructure, market, and employment growth.
8.4The time for constant reviews, advisory committees and never-ending rounds of consultation is well behind us. As was succinctly put to the committee during the current inquiry, 'we don't need to keep talking. We need to do'.
8.5There was a unified view from industry and other inquiry participants that we know the solutions, and it is time for those solutions to be standardised and swiftly implemented across the waste and resource recovery sector. Urgent action must be taken to address the known issues facing the sector and benefit Australia's environment and economy.
8.6Noting the views and the evidence put forward during this inquiry, the following recommendations from the committee are aimed at taking Australia into a truly circular economy and the next stage of resource recovery andwasteminimisation.
Implementation of the circular economy
8.7The evidence is clear regarding both the environmental and economic benefits of Australia implementing a circular economy and moving away from linear approaches to waste management and resource recovery.
8.8The waste and resource recovery sector is united in its view that Australia must develop and increase its onshore infrastructure and capabilities as the most direct way of reducing waste going to landfill, decreasing the reliance on exports and implementing a circular economy.
8.9The committee is of the view that the focus of investment and development needs to be on the whole product design, packaging and resource supply chain, and not what often happens currently at the end of the pipeline when packaging and materials enter the waste stream.
8.10The circular economy reflects this idea, and while there are steps in the right direction, implementation is understandably slow. Evidence to the committee suggests that the recycling and resource recovery industry appears to be bearing the brunt of the responsibility—and cost—for the management of Australia's waste. The lack of regulation over the quality and content of imported materials, and the absence of mandating product requirements, including stewardship, means Australia is not properly considering the waste and resource pipeline wholistically, allowing 'leaks' to occur.
8.11Australia is not properly considering how materials are being designed and produced when it comes to their end-of-life—thus the importance of a proper circular economy and mandatory product stewardship schemes. Australia needs to increase its focus on incentivising the front end of the pipeline, to make sure design decisions maximise reuse, recycling and resource recovery. In doing so, Australia will start to develop markets for commodities which do not currently have one onshore.
8.12The recent report of the Circular Economy Ministerial Advisory Group (CEMAG), including its broad recommendations, provides a clear pathway to implementation of a circular economy.
8.13The committee also acknowledges the recent release of the first national Circular Economy Framework. The framework incorporates targets for Australia to double its circularity of the economy by 2035 and to do so via all stages of a product's life cycle. As noted by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), the framework is ambitious.
8.14It is very apparent to the committee that the ways to implement a circular economy throughout the supply chain are now well known. Multiple inquiries (including several parliamentary inquiries) have now considered this issue, and the time for action is now. Noting this, the committee endorses the findings and recommendations of these inquiries and calls on the Australian Government to implement them as a matter of priority. In addition, the committee recommends that the government prioritise progressing and implementing the legislative framework for a circular economy, through a new, stand-alone circular economy law. CEMAG recommended the introduction of a new Circular Economy Act, which should include a clear framework for setting standards for the design of imported and locally manufactured goods.
8.15The committee recommends the Australian Government legislate a Circular Economy Act, in accordance with the recommendation of the Circular Economy Ministerial Advisory Group (CEMAG), to implement a full circular economy framework aimed at effectively supporting Australia's waste management and resource recovery sectors, and improving environmental and economic outcomes. A legislated Circular Economy Act should reflect the findings and recommendations of the CEMAG and Productivity Commission and set a clear framework for imported and local product design, financial incentives, and regulatory enforcement.
Productivity Commission inquiry
8.16The Productivity Commission’s (PC) March 2025 interim report acknowledges that Australia's progress towards a circular economy has been slow. The committee welcomes the PC's commitment to consider policies to increase circularity and product stewardship in various waste streams, including small electronics and photovoltaic (PV) cells.
8.17However, the committee notes that the PC interim report does not directly address the role of financial incentives, such as levies and subsidies, in driving circular economy outcomes. This is despite the CEMAG expressly calling for the PC to examine the role of financial levers in improving economic and environmental outcomes via the circular economy.
8.18The committee appreciates that the PC is continuing its work and seeking further stakeholder views, including on the costs and implementation options associated with various reform directions. However, for the avoidance of doubt the committee reiterates the CEMAG's view that the PC should examine the role of financial incentives and economic levers in driving the circular economy and supporting industry.
8.19The PC should also examine ways to level the playing field for importers and exporters of packaged goods, plastics and other materials, by examining the financial levers and policy settings available to equalise the conditions for both imports and exports—especially for virgin plastics. The PC should also consider the current financial policy settings in foreign jurisdictions where equalisation and circular economy principles have been successfully implemented, including the United Kingdom's Plastic Packaging Tax.
8.20The committee recommends that in its final report for its inquiry into opportunities in the circular economy, the Productivity Commission examine the role of economic settings and financial incentives (including levies and subsidies) in driving circular economy outcomes. The Productivity Commission should further examine:
the market conditions for the import and export of packaged goods,plastics and other materials;
the financial levers and policy settings available to equalise conditions for importers and exporters; and
the current financial policy settings in foreign jurisdictions where circular economy principles have been successfully implemented.
National harmonisation and regulation
8.21The committee appreciates the positive developments which have taken place within the waste and resource recovery sector since 2018, including the implementation of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 (RAWR Act), the development of National Waste Policies and associated Action Plans, some improvements in product stewardship and recycling standards, and the increasing acknowledgement of the importance of a circular economy.
8.22However, the evidence shows that Australia is failing to meet many of its seven National Waste Policy Action Plan targets. DCCEEW advises that Australia is not tracking well against several targets, with increases in both plastics consumption and the amount of organic waste being sent to landfill.
8.23Evidence to the committee demonstrates that differences between jurisdictions and the classification of waste materials in legislation, is—in part—driving these results, as is a lack of real-time, complete data. Regulatory fragmentation across jurisdictions was raised repeatedly by submitters and witnesses as a driver of these poor outcomes. As noted by the CEMAG, inconsistencies across jurisdictions are hampering market development and the ability of business to scale up at a national level.
8.24The committee heard directly from resource and waste companies that the absence of mandated regulatory approaches is leading to a lack of investment in technology and other infrastructure. Further, jurisdictional fragmentation across the country between local, state and the federal government, is leading to perverse outcomes and prohibiting the necessary investment by companies to tackle various waste streams.
8.25By way of example, witnesses and submitters pointed to discrepancies across jurisdictions in the imposition of landfill levies. Different levies across both local and state governments can drive improper waste disposal practices and levyavoidance.
8.26It became apparent during the inquiry that the resource recovery industry wants a strong regulatory framework. The fact that any industry is calling for increased government regulation and mandatory, legislative frameworks should indicate to governments across Australia that reform is urgently needed, and the time is right to do it. The industry is calling for national leadership.
8.27The committee sees great benefit in improved national harmonisation, to drive investment confidence and reinforce circular economy principles. The committee recommends the establishment of a centralised, cross-jurisdictional taskforce which oversights waste and resource regulation and process, to ensure that all jurisdictions are working collaboratively towards harmonised resource recovery and reuse. The taskforce should provide advice, as required, on the financial support needed to implement the circular economy—for example, via a Circular Economy Fund.
8.28Further, the Environment Ministers' Meeting should take the lead on coordinating consistency between jurisdictions regarding definitions of waste and resources, and to guide the implementation of nationally consistent waste management policies, including consistent landfill levies, wherever possible.
8.29The committee recommends the Australian Government establish a cross-jurisdictional circular economy action taskforce to oversight harmonised waste prevention and recycling practices, and the shift to a circular economy across Australia. The taskforce should be empowered to improve national harmonisation in waste reduction and resource recovery, in line with circular economy principles and outcomes. The taskforce should provide an annual update on national harmonisation progress to the Australian Parliament, no later than 30 September each year.
8.30The circular economy action taskforce should consist of representatives from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; the Treasury; the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, and any other relevant Australian Government agencies. It should also include representatives from each state and territory and from the Australian Local Government Association. The taskforce should engage with the waste and resource recovery sector and relevant consumer groups on at least a quarterly basis, and provide advice to government as required on the financial support needed to implement the circular economy (for example, via a Circular EconomyFund).
8.31The committee recommends that the Environment Ministers' Meeting works to coordinate the implementation of nationally harmonised definitions for waste reduction and resource recovery, and harmonised landfill levies, wherever possible.
Mandatory product stewardship schemes
8.32One of the best ways to support positive environmental outcomes and to deliver circularity throughout the packaging and resource supply chain is through product stewardship, as evidenced by the success of container deposit schemes (CDS). The importance of product stewardship has been noted by environment ministers, and yet governments at all levels have not grasped the opportunities in this area.
8.33If properly implemented, product stewardship schemes incentivise those companies which place on the market large volumes of plastics, packaging and other materials to account for the life cycle of their products—both financially and environmentally. Essentially, producers must be responsible for the products they produce, especially when it comes to single-use and other problematic plastics and electronics, including batteries and PV systems, which persist in waste and resource streams.
8.34The evidence, however, was compelling from across the industry as well as environmental groups and other stakeholders that voluntary product stewardship schemes are largely ineffective, due to a lack of consequences for non-compliance, lower recovery rates, and limited resources.
8.35There were repeated calls for the implementation of mandatory product stewardship schemes, with commensurate investment in the required recovery, recycling and reprocessing infrastructure and markets. The industry was clear that a lack of mandatory requirements, issues with free-riders and insufficient planning and investment had halted progress on product stewardship.
8.36A lack of mandated regulation in product stewardship is actively deterring businesses from investment in the necessary recovery, recycling and reprocessing infrastructure. The committee is concerned that yet again, this issue has been discussed over many years and across parliaments, yet mandatory schemes have failed to eventuate. This is reflected in the National Waste Policy Action Plans, where legislative frameworks and enforcement mechanisms do not exist, and targets have not been met.
8.37There appears to be various reasons why mandated regulation has not progressed in Australia, despite comparable countries implementing mandatory and enforceable product stewardship schemes. It was suggested to the committee that the relevant Australian Government departments may lack the resources to enforce mandatory regulations. There was also conjecture about a lack of political will to implement change, and observations about the role of lobbying from some of the industry's biggest players in slowing progress.
8.38The evidence makes clear that most of the industry as well as environmental groups want progress and regulation, and yet the goalposts keep moving. Government deadlines are repeatedly missed; timeframes for targets and other outcomes are being frequently extended—and yet consultation continues. The current review of the RAWR Act may provide insights into why progress has stalled in recent years, and an opportunity for dedicated action in future.
8.39Mandatory product stewardship and extended producer responsibility schemes would provide confidence to the resources industry and provide a strong signal for long-term economic investment, and such an approach was supported by the CEMAG in its final report.
Packaging
8.40Inquiry participants expressed their frustration with the Australian Packaging Covenant and the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO). Despite being established many years ago, and clear goals set out in the National Packaging Targets in 2018 (to be met by 2025), APCO has consistently failed to meet its targets and has admitted they are unlikely to be met by the end of this year.
8.41Following a 2021 review, DCCEEW noted that the co-regulatory arrangement put in place in 1999 was no longer fit for purpose and in 2023, environment ministers agreed to reform, including mandatory packaging designs; compliance with a National Packaging Design Standard; and requiring a minimum amount of recycled content in packaging. Environment ministers agreed to reform packaging regulation by 2025.
8.42Many of these targets have not been met, and no mandatory schemes or design requirements have been implemented. Meeting the targets and implementing packaging reform by 2025 would have played an essential role in equalling the playing field for industry. Had the 2025 targets been met, Australia's waste management and resources recovery sector would be in a very different place. The infrastructure would likely be in place for recyclate to be produced and sold on shore.
8.43The committee strongly endorses the important and historic 'breakthrough' statement of 17 March 2025, from the Boomerang Alliance, Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia, Australian Council of Recycling, Soft Plastics Stewardship Australia and APCO. The statement calls for a mandatory product stewardship scheme for packaging by 2026, including for soft plastics.
8.44APCO's support for this statement is particularly welcome, noting the organisation has up to this point been agnostic on whether such schemes should be mandatory. The committee sees this as significant progress and hopes it spurs prompt action from the government to mandate product stewardship.
8.45While the committee welcomes the publication of the Design for Kerbside Recyclability Grading Framework, it stresses that other packaging reform must be progressed as a matter of urgency.
8.46DCCEEW advised that, as of February 2025, it was still considering consultation outcomes to take advice to government. The committee notes that while it appears all environment ministers and the Australian Government are on the same page regarding improved packaging rules and recyclability, there is still no regulation in place. Industry is still waiting to see the outcomes of these agreements, and again lacks the certainty required to make long-term infrastructure and business investment.
8.47The committee appreciates that this is a detailed and complex area of recycling and resource policy, for example, in areas of food safety in packaging design. However, until packaging reform is achieved there remains an incentive for business to continue using virgin materials (including imported materials) and to not incorporate more recycled materials into packaging. Further, while these may be complex matters, steps to address them have, for some time now, been successfully implemented overseas.
8.48The committee is particularly keen to see the mandating of a requirement for new packaging developed in Australia, to use a prescribed amount of Australian recycled material. The markets for these products are currently limited, and decisions and regulation around packaging will help to drive the creation ofthesemarkets.
8.49Packaging design is an essential element to supporting the other key measures needed across the waste and resource recovery sectors—particularly mandatory product stewardship, increased recyclability and the circular economy. Consideration should also be given to the quality of packaging imported from overseas, in line with the committee's previous recommendation aboutimportregulation.
8.50The committee therefore recommends that mandatory product stewardship schemes and packaging design requirements be implemented as soon as possible, with appropriate mechanisms to drive demand for recycled materials over virgin alternatives and to provide investment confidence.
8.51The committee recommends that legislation be introduced—either stand-alone regulations or via amendments to the RAWR Act—to implement mandatory, national product stewardship schemes, with a particular focus on plastics, batteries and PV systems. Along with legislative amendment, there should be sufficient budgetary appropriations to provide some support for industry to shift to product stewardship, via grants or a similar scheme, noting that the primary responsibility ought to lie with producers.
Stewardship of batteries
8.52Significant concerns have been raised in many forums about the substantial environmental and human health risks associated with batteries and e-waste being placed in kerbside collection bins and in general waste streams. Batteries and e-waste, including PV systems, present some of the most problematic waste products in Australia, and PV systems are the country's fastest growing waste stream—with PV waste due to hit 90000 tonnes by 2030.
8.53Considering this, it is very disappointing to see electronic waste from PV systems removed from the minister's product stewardship priority list, and to witness the slow progress on regulatory schemes for PV panels and batteries. No timeframe could be provided to the committee on when regulatory action from the Commonwealth might be expected for PV panels.
8.54State-based stewardship of batteries is now progressing as the risk of battery-related fires is too great, and states and territories cannot wait for Australian Government leadership and regulatory reform. Submitters and witnesses expressed frustration at a lack of Commonwealth leadership in this area.
8.55The committee welcomes the recent passage of the New South Wales (NSW) Product Lifecycle Responsibility Act 2025 and the implementation of a mandatory product stewardship framework, which can be used as a template for introduction in other jurisdictions. The committee notes that the waste management and resource recovery industry has expressed strong support for the NSW reform and its adoption in other states and territories to ensure consistency across the jurisdictions. The committee encourages the Australian Government and other state and territory governments to carefully examine the suitability of the NSW mandatory product stewardship framework for either national or consistent state-based implementation.
8.56NSW has taken an important step in addressing the serious environmental and human safety risks of batteries, which could be applied at a national level. However, it again highlights a lack of Commonwealth leadership and increased fragmentation across states and territories, with individual jurisdictions implementing their own schemes.
8.57It is apparent that a lack of federal leadership on addressing battery, PV and other electronic waste means that individual jurisdictions are going it alone, leading to more fragmentation across the country, increased costs for industry, worse environmental outcomes, and serious and increased risk of battery-related fires. The committee supports the proposed improvements that B-cycle 2.0 would bring to the existing national battery recycling scheme, and notes that the new scheme design is intended to be sufficiently flexible and adaptable to align with the NSW legislation as it evolves. The committee calls on the Australian Government to mandate a product stewardship scheme for batteries as a matter of priority.
8.58The committee makes the following recommendations considering the current review into the RAWR Act (discussed later in this chapter), and in acknowledgement that a legislated Circular Economy Act would, once in force, nationally harmonise many of these elements into a central legislative framework. The committee suggests that any recommended amendments to the RAWR Act should form part of a legislated Circular Economy Act.
8.59The committee recommends the Australian Government amend the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 to implement ambitious producer-funded mandatory national product stewardship schemes, packaging design requirements and rules, with mechanisms to drive demand for recycled materials. Legislative reform should progress the national harmonisation of container deposit schemes. Mandatory product stewardship schemes should immediately be implemented for problematic waste streams including:
plastics and packaging, including soft plastics and taking into consideration packaging design;
batteries; and
photovoltaic systems.
8.60In developing national, mandatory product stewardship schemes, the committee recommends the Australian Government consider the Product Lifecycle Responsibility Act 2025 (NSW) and its suitability as a framework for national implementation. The Australian Government should publicly release its views on the national applicability of the NSW legislation, as part of its review of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020.
Recommendation 6
8.61The committee recommends the Australian Government amend the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 to mandate that packaging produced in Australia contain a minimum amount of recycled Australian materials.
8.62The Australian Government should offer financial incentives or other assistance to the waste and resources sector for the investment required in infrastructure and markets to support mandated product stewardshipschemes.
Extended producer responsibility schemes
8.63Extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes are a vital part of supporting product stewardship, shifting the responsibility for the life cycle of packaging and other products on to their primary producers, importers or sellers.
8.64The committee heard support for mandatory EPR schemes, particularly for the most problematic waste streams. Further, a lack of federal leadership has led many states and territories to implement their own EPR schemes for certain products, as highlighted by the various CDS across the country.
8.65The RAWR Act is silent on EPR schemes. To support mandatory product stewardship the committee sees significant benefit in implementing a legislative framework for EPR. This framework would also assist with the national harmonisation of CDS, as recommended above.
8.66Noting that EPR would place the onus on producers, it would be appropriate that each industry is required to financially support any EPR schemes that areintroduced.
8.67The committee recommends the Australian Government amend the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 to provide a national legislative framework for extended producer responsibility schemes, to be funded by industry.
Plastics packaging
Global plastics pollution treaty
8.68The committee welcomes the government's support for the development of a United Nations (UN) global plastics pollution treaty and supports Australia's recent statement to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) calling for harmonised design standards for plastic products. The committee is also pleased to see Australia is a signatory to the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution (HAC).
8.69The committee echoes the views of Minister Plibersek in expressing disappointment that the recent INC meeting in December 2024 failed to reach an agreement on the plastics treaty. The deadline set by the UN for an agreed global treaty has now passed. UN member states have made clear their disappointment and concern about the limited progress, and about the prioritisation of interests of those who are against the negotiation of a successfultreaty.
8.70It is very discouraging to see this lack of progress on an international scale, especially given the acknowledgement, made during negotiations, that plastic pollution damages both human health and the environment. It remains unclear why this process is taking a significant time to progress. However, the statement from UN member states about the prioritising of other interests suggests that lobbying by the world's largest polluters may be a contributing factor, as are tensions between support for voluntary as opposed to mandatory approaches.
8.71The committee supports Australia continuing to advocate for higher ambition on the global plastics treaty through the INC, and taking urgent action on plastics through the HAC. It is particularly important that any treaty is legally binding and enforceable, noting the limitations of voluntary schemes.
8.72The committee recommends the Australian Government continue to engage strongly on the United Nations (UN) Global Plastics Treaty to End Plastic Pollution, through the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, which aims to achieve an international, legally binding instrument to eliminate plastic pollution.
Soft plastics
8.73Soft plastics remain one of the most problematic waste streams in Australia. We are one of the world's worst producers of single-use plastic waste. Plastics also present an ongoing and serious risk to human and environmental health. The many different types of plastics, the majority of which are placed into landfill; restrictive import and export conditions; and the lack of local manufacturing and processing facilities are key factors halting progress on addressing the plastic waste problem.
8.74The committee welcomes the work of the Solving Plastic Waste Cooperative Research Centre, but notes its work will not conclude for some time. It is also positive to see states and territories taking action to ban certain plastics. However the lack of federal leadership on this issue is again contributing to regulatory fragmentation and moving Australia further away from a cohesive and more circular approach to plastics.
8.75Progress on the Australian Food and Grocery Council's National Plastics Recycling Scheme appears to have stalled, not yet progressing beyond limited trials. It has also been some time since the collapse of REDcycle, and while the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has authorised the three major supermarkets to continue with their Soft Plastics Taskforce, these supermarkets are still trying to process stockpiles of soft plastics left over from REDcycle, while collecting more in store and while Australia continues to put single-use and soft plastics into the waste stream.
8.76Various methods are being introduced to manage plastic waste, however the committee holds some concerns about waste-to-energy, and also the chemical recycling of plastics. Some of these approaches to managing plastics are not environmentally sound and do not address the core issue of plastics in the waste stream. Nor do they place any responsibility on the producers of the plastic, like product stewardship or EPR schemes would. Other methods as part of a circular economy, such as improved packaging regulations and product stewardship schemes are, in the view of the committee, a better way to manage soft plastics.
8.77Noting the slow progress on various fronts to tackle the soft plastics problem, the committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the Environment Ministers' Meeting, take a leadership role in coordinating national harmonisation for the collection, recovery and processing of soft plastics. While the producers and vendors of soft plastics should take primary responsibility, the government should offer financial incentives or other assistance to the industry to the extent necessary to effectively collect and process soft plastics.
8.78The committee recommends the Australian Government, through the Environment Ministers' Meeting, play a lead role to coordinate agreement with the state and territory governments to fast track the national harmonisation of collection, recovery and processing of soft plastics. The Australian Government should continue to offer financial incentives or other assistance to the waste and resources sector for the investment required to collect and process soft plastics.
Climate and waste
8.79Overarching the entire discussion on waste reduction, recycling and the circular economy is the negative impact of increasing levels of waste on the environment and its contribution to climate change, as well as the adverse impact on human health.
8.80In its final report, the CEMAG argued that 'embracing a circular economy offers a powerful solution to the polycrisis of pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change'. It continued that embedding circular economy principles in environmental, social and governance frameworks was a 'practical way to address climate risks and opportunities'.
8.81As outlined in Chapter 3, the CEMAG's final report makes clear that circular economy principles should be embedded across Australian Government policies and programs, particularly net zero and climate policies. This recognises that such an approach would benefit Australia's emissions reduction goals and sustainable net zero transition.
8.82Throughout this inquiry, submitters and witnesses called for the Australian Government to align its climate and net zero polices and emissions reduction targets with circular economy principles and product stewardship. The committee echoes these calls and suggests these issues should have the full attention of the government. The committee is hopeful that action will be taken now to address the waste crises and improve Australia's climate and emissions reduction outcomes.
Publication of and access to data
8.83Data on waste and recycling is collated in various jurisdictions, using different definitions, collection methods and timeframes. This makes it difficult for the magnitude of Australia's waste problem and progress against the National Waste Policy Action Plan and other recovery targets to be properly assessed.
8.84National harmonisation of definitions and approaches to waste management and resource recovery (as per the committee's earlier recommendation) will go some way to addressing this issue, noting that most of the data on waste and recycling is collected by local, state and territory governments.
8.85However, public release of the data and increased transparency around results is needed. Data needs to be improved to track and record the volume of recycled materials and packaging which is on the market, particularly if a minimum amount of recycled content is mandated. The data also needs to be released in a timelier manner, so that government policy and the waste and resource industry can keep pace with developments in the sector.
8.86In line with the findings of the CEMAG, the committee recommends that the Australian Government seek state and territory government cooperation to improve the consistency, quality and timeliness of waste, resource and recycling data. Further, all data—from state and territory governments and from businesses—should be released as close to real time as possible.
8.87The committee was also told that Australia's major supermarkets—some of Australia's biggest contributors to waste—do not make any data publicly available on their progress towards APCO's National Packaging Targets. Given the volume of materials generated by supermarkets, this lack of transparency could have direct implications for data analysis and identifying the areas of greatest need in waste and resource recovery.
8.88The committee recommends that supermarkets be made to publish this data annually, through APCO.
Recommendation 11
8.89The committee recommends the Australian Government, through the Environment Ministers' Meeting, play a lead role to achieve cooperation between state and territory governments to improve the consistency, quality and timeliness of waste, resource and recycling data. This data should be published on an annual basis, for the immediate year prior, and include key metrics from relevant Australian businesses.
Recommendation12
8.90The committee recommends the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation be authorised to receive and publish annual data from Australia's major supermarkets and other major packaging producers and users, including their progress towards National Packaging Targets, the amount and categories of packaging being placed on the market, and the percentage of Australian recycled materials used in supermarket packaging.
Recycling Modernisation Fund
8.91The committee heard that the Recycling Modernisation Fund (RMF) is supporting a number of infrastructure projects, including in regional and remote areas, aimed at increasing Australia's annual recovery and recyclingcapacity.
8.92However, the committee received evidence suggesting there was a lack of transparency around both the allocation of funding and the outcomes delivered by the RMF. This is despite the allocation of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars to the fund. Further, there is no apparent link between the RMF and, for example, the APCO and National Waste Policy Action Plan targets. This is indicative of broader policy issues in waste recovery and resource management.
8.93The committee supports the calls made by inquiry participants for a thorough analysis of the administration, delivered outcomes and value for money of the RMF. The committee is of the view the Australian National Audit Office should conduct an audit into the RMF's administration and operation.
8.94The findings of an audit could also help to ensure that any future investments into the sector, including support for mandatory packaging and implementation of circular economy objectives, are targeted and fit for purpose. Contingent on the findings of the audit, the committee suggests that the government could consider if the RMF remains fit for purpose, and if so, whether its focus could be expanded and repurposed as a fund to help industry move to acirculareconomy.
Recommendation 13
8.95The committee recommends the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), as part of its 2025-26 Audit Program, conduct an audit of the administration and operation of the Recycling Modernisation Fund. Pending the findings of the ANAO, the Australian Government should consider the merits of repurposing and broadening the Recycling Modernisation Fund to become a Circular Economy Fund.
Kerbside recycling
8.96There appears to be consensus amongst some of Australia's biggest waste and recycling companies for the harmonisation across the country of kerbside recycling practices.
8.97The committee welcomes the agreement of Australian environment ministers to a national roadmap for kerbside collection, noting the concrete steps for governments of all levels outlined in the National Kerbside Collections Roadmap (Roadmap), and now being progressed by the National Design Standard Working Group. The committee supports the standardisation of bin lids, labels, and signs issued for kerbside collection services in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 4123.7-2006; the introduction of minimum national collection lists; and coordinated action to increase Australia’s collection and recyclingcapacity.
8.98The Roadmap, however, is vague on some details. The Roadmap documentation states that it will be subject to a reporting framework and 'periodic national review process'. Without further details on what the reporting framework might entail, and exactly when the review will take place—beyond 'periodically'—it will be hard to follow the roll-out and success of the Roadmap.
8.99The committee acknowledges the Design for Kerbside Recyclability Grading Framework which is seeking to clarify the recyclability of different packaging materials, and how different materials impact on kerbside collection and recycling capacity. The framework is currently subject to another round of consultation, ending in April 2025.
8.100The committee appreciates that cross-jurisdictional harmonisation requires sometimes complex policy work, but calls on the government to use both the Roadmap and the framework to progress national harmonisation of the kerbside collection of both organics and recyclable material. There is clear industry and government support for harmonisation.
8.101For improved transparency, the committee further recommends that regular updates are provided on progress of the Roadmap, via the Australian environment ministers.
Recommendation 14
8.102The committee recommends the Australian Government, through the Environment Ministers' Meeting, finalise the Design for Kerbside Recyclability Grading Framework at the completion of the current consultation process, and implement cross-jurisdictional harmonisation of kerbside collection for organics, recycling and landfill waste.
8.103The committee recommends the Australian Government, through the Environment Ministers' Meeting, provide regular updates on the progress of the National Kerbside Collections Roadmap.
Export regulations
8.104The export regulations which have been steadily introduced over recent years have changed the operations of the resource recovery sector and how various waste streams are processed in Australia.
8.105The evidence to the committee suggests that the export bans have resulted in a greatly increased regulatory burden on the resource recovery sector. The magnitude of cost recovery, via the licence and variation fees which were in place between July and November 2024, also had a direct and negative impact, particularly on smaller operators which could not absorb the initial cost of a licence fee and could not pay the nearly $14000 in charges imposed on each occasion to vary that licence.
8.106The origin of this policy is also not apparent. The committee did not receive any clear answers or clarification on how the then-Council of Australian Governments (COAG) reached agreement on the export regime. Despite being one of the major environmental policies of the Morrison government, it appears no one knows where it came from or how it was developed.
8.107This may explain why the committee was told that the onerous regulations, together with the licensing and fee regime, were leading to perverse outcomes. In particular, the regulations were driving increased volumes of landfill due to insufficient local capacity to process materials and were undermining efforts at recycling and the circular economy. There was also a lack of engagement from DCCEEW on addressing industry concerns. Perverse outcomes will continue to result if the standards and expectations of recycling and export standards are too high and cannot be met.
8.108In addition, the original COAG agreement to ban the export of certain materials was made commensurate with an agreement to build Australia's capacity to generate high-value recycled materials. While the bans have progressed, there has been limited progress on the second portion of COAG's agreement and Australia's recycling capacity has stagnated.
8.109These factors led members of the committee to disallow the fee regulations in the Senate—a step that was not taken lightly but was necessary given the circumstances. The committee calls on the Australian Government and DCCEEW to work with industry to reconsider the imposition of export variation fees, and to determine the best way to continue exporting valuable commodities in a way that supports Australian industry and the circular economy.
8.110Any revised instrument, if and when reintroduced to the Parliament, should be accompanied by clear guidance material which explains how the rules will apply in practice—for example, outlining exactly what would constitute a 'significant' variation under any revised cost recovery scheme.
8.111The committee recommends the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water work with the waste and resource recovery sector on revisions to the now-repealed Recycling and Waste Reduction (Fees) Amendment (Export of Regulated Waste Material Fees and Other Measures) Rules 2024. The department should work with industry to amend the intent of the 2024 Rules to ensure cost recovery measures do not impede the export of valuable commodities, are environmentally effective, and are sustainable in the long-term for the waste and resource recovery sector.
Imports
8.112Submitters and witnesses drew attention to the lack of regulation on imports into Australia—in direct contrast to the stringent requirements for Australian processors moving valuable resources offshore, while being subject to strict onshore regulation. It was repeatedly put to the committee that there is not an equal playing field, with large multinational companies often able to import their packaging without scrutiny.
8.113While not diminishing the importance of exporting 'clean' waste, the committee questions the efficacy of charging for the export of processed, value-added resources, while imports are not subject to similar regimes and oversight.
8.114It is of particular concern to the committee that a lack of regulation on imported virgin and recycled material into the country impedes Australia's progress towards a circular economy. Australia should be careful to not import material for which there is no end-of-life market, at least until such infrastructure and markets become available.
8.115This will occur when regulation provides investment certainty, and proper circular economy principles are applied across the community and waste sector.
8.116The committee recommends the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, together with The Treasury and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, develop regulations for the import of virgin and recycled material and packaging into Australia. Import regulations should take account of Australia's needs in processing various waste streams and consider:
minimum standards and requirements for materials entering Australia;
restricting the import of materials and goods which cannot be properly processed and/or recycled at their end-of-life;
the current and future capacity of Australia's waste recovery and materials processing infrastructure;
the role of mandatory product stewardship schemes in supporting import regulations; and
the role of financial incentives, including levies and subsidies.
RAWR Act review
8.117DCCEEW is currently undertaking a review of the RAWR Act, the first such review since the Act was implemented in 2020.
8.118As part of this inquiry, the committee received evidence and commentary from across industry and from environmental groups about how the RAWR Act could be amended and improved. Reviews of the Act are particularly important in the current context of moving Australia's waste management and resources sector into a circular economy.
8.119The review will also play a key role in identifying the limitations of the RAWR Act, as identified by the CEMAG, witnesses and submitters. Considering the other recommendations made by the committee, particularly around mandatory product stewardship, EPR schemes and national harmonisation, it is vital to ensure the RAWR Act remains fit for purpose.
8.120The committee therefore expects that the evidence received by its inquiry and the committee's recommendations (in both 2018 and 2025) be taken into consideration by DCCEEW as part of the RAWR Act review.
8.121The committee recommends that as part of its review into the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water take into consideration the evidence received, and recommendations made during this inquiry and the committee's 2018 inquiry.
Utilising government procurement power
8.122The committee welcomes the Australian Government's implementation of the first phase of the Environmentally Sustainable Procurement Policy and concurs with DCCEEW's view that with its significant buying power, Commonwealth procurement can play a key role in promoting environmental sustainability. In spending nearly $75 billion per year on good and services, the Commonwealth can drive the uptake of recycled and repaired products and support products which promote circularity.
8.123However, the committee was told the new Procurement Policy does not have any targets and is vague on detail. It also only applies to a limited selection of procurement categories—construction, information and communication technology goods, textiles and furniture, fittings and equipment—which reach a certain contract value.
8.124Given the considerable purchasing power at not only the national level, but through state, territory and local governments, the committee suggests there would be great benefit to expanding a Sustainable Procurement Policy to all three levels of government, in order to stimulate demand, provide strong investment signals to industry and help promote net zero goals.
8.125The committee recommends environment ministers, together with the Australian Local Government Association, develop an Environmentally Sustainable Procurement Policy to be applied to federal, state, territory and local government procurement processes.
Senator Peter Whish-Wilson
Chair