3. The effectiveness of the plastics management framework under the National Plastics Plan
   1. This chapter considers the effectiveness of current plastics management strategies under the National Plastics Plan 2021 (NPP) and related policies such as the National Packaging Targets 2025 to reduce plastic pollution, particularly in oceans and waterways.

Australia’s plastics management framework

3.2Plastics and plastic pollution are managed through several key frameworks, policies, standards, guidance, and forums that are primarily led and coordinated by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (the Department).[1] Day-to-day management of plastics is generally the responsibility of state, territory, and local governments.[2]

3.3Key policies include the National Waste Policy 2018, the National Waste Policy Action Plan 2019, the NPP, and the National Packaging Targets 2025. The Department said that, in addition to coordinating these policies, it engages in national waste activities through:

• forums such as the Environment Ministers Meeting, and meetings of senior officials and heads of environment protection agencies
• data collection from states and territories, including for collation in the Australian Government’s National Waste Report, the Australian Plastic Flows and Fates report, and the National Survey of Problematic and Unnecessary Single-use Plastic Packaging and Products
• the development of environmental standards and guidance
• the coordination of activities
• direct regulation in some areas.[3]
  4. The Department said that Australia’s approach to reducing plastic waste is through the adoption of the waste hierarchy to work towards achieving a circular economy. The waste hierarchy identifies the most preferred options of waste avoidance, such as ‘avoiding the purchase of products with unnecessary packaging’ and re-using waste, to the least preferred options such as waste disposal and waste treatment.[4]
  5. The Department noted that there are five principles underpinning waste management, recycling, and resource recovery in a circular economy:

1Avoid waste:

a. Prioritise waste avoidance, encourage efficient use, reuse and repair.

b. Design products so waste is minimised, they are made to last, we can more easily recover materials and avoid harmful additives that prevent safe reuse and recycling.

2Improve resource recovery:

a. Improve material collection systems and processes for recycling.

b. Improve the quality of recycled material we produce.

3Increase use of recycled material and build demand and markets for recycled products.

4Better manage material flows to benefit human health, the environment and the economy.

5Improve information to support innovation, guide investment and enable informed consumer decisions.[5]

3.6To drive industry action, the National Packaging Targets 2025 were established in 2018 to create new and sustainable pathways for the way in which packaging is managed in Australia. The National Packaging Targets are being delivered by the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), which is working with industry across the packaging supply chain.[6] The National Packaging Targets 2025 will be discussed later in this chapter.

3.7In 2018, the National Waste Policy was developed, incorporating the waste hierarchy with a focus on high order uses and a circular economy approach.[7] The National Waste Policy Action Plan 2019 implements this policy and sets out seven targets and 80 action items to better manage waste and resource recovery to 2030 and beyond.[8] The National Waste Policy Action Plan’s seven targets are:

• banning the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres
• reducing the total waste generated in Australia by 10% per person by 2030
• achieving an 80% average recovery rate from all waste streams by 2030
• significantly increasing the use of recycled content by governments and industry
• phasing out problematic and unnecessary plastics by 2025
• halving the amount of organic waste sent to landfill by 2030
• making comprehensive, economy-wide and timely data publicly available to support better consumer, investment and policy decisions.[9]
  8. The Department is leading the delivery of most action items either independently or in conjunction with the states and territories.[10]
  9. The National Waste Policy Action Plan Annexure 2022 provides an update on progress made and action items that have been delivered up to September 2022. Delivered action items include:

• the enactment of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 under Target 1: Ban on export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres
• the delivery of a Cooperative Research Centres Projects round with priority funding for new and innovative solutions to plastic recycling and plastic waste reduction under Target 2: Reduce total waste generated in Australia by 10 per cent per person by 2030
• the development of the NPP and the phasing out of 100 per cent of microbeads from rinse off cosmetic and personal care products under Target 5: Phase out problematic and unnecessary plastics by 2025.[11]

The Environment Ministers Meeting

3.10The Environment Ministers Meeting is an intergovernmental forum comprising the Australian Government Minister for the Environment, and the environment minister from each Australian state and territory. The Ministers meet as required to discuss strategic issues and agree on cross-government actions with the aim of improving Australia’s environment.

3.11In October 2022, the Ministers met and agreed to ‘develop nationally harmonised definitions’ to support the transition from single-use plastics to streamline compliance with bans and minimise cross-border business costs for industries.[12]

3.12At the meeting on 9 June 2023, the Ministers agreed to accelerate Australia’s shift towards a circular economy by implementing a new packaging regulatory scheme that will develop ‘mandatory packaging design obligations’ to reduce waste, facilitate recovery, support recycling and proper processing of packaging.[13] They also agreed to develop a national roadmap to improve harmonisation of kerbside collection for Ministers to consider in 2024.[14]

3.13More recently, during the Environment Ministers Meeting on 10 November 2023, the Ministers agreed to develop National Packaging Laws that would establish guidelines for the design of packaging. These provisions would enforce minimum recycled content and restrict the use of harmful chemicals to generate demand for recycled content and consequently boost recycling rates.[15]

National Plastics Plan 2021

3.14One of the key deliverables of the National Waste Policy Action Plan 2019 was the development of the NPP to reduce plastic waste and increase recycling rates, find alternatives to some plastics, and reduce the overall amount of plastics produced.[16]

3.15The NPP outlines five key actions that take a ‘whole-of-life-cycle approach to the plastics challenge including design, use, recovery, and reuse’:[17]

1Prevention – addressing plastics at the source

2Recycling – taking responsibility for our plastics

3Plastics in our daily lives

4Plastics in our oceans and waterways

5Research, innovation and data.[18]

3.16The following sections will examine the effectiveness of the five key actions and any progress made.

Prevention – addressing plastics at the source

3.17‘Prevention’ is the first key component of the NPP. It outlines five actions for state, territory and local governments, and industry, to address problematic plastics at their source:

• Phase out polymer types in certain applications such as plastic packaging products with additive fragmentable technology that do not meet relevant compostable standards (by July 2022); expanded polystyrene (EPS) from loose packaging fill and moulded packaging (by December 2022); and PVC [Polyvinyl chloride] packaging labels (by December 2022).
• Work with Boomerang Alliance to eliminate single-use plastics from Australia’s favourite beaches and support local businesses to switch to alternative products.
• Hold a Plastics Design Summit in 2021 for product designers and manufacturers to showcase their sustainable product design.
• Industry to transition towards higher-value, easily recyclable plastics such as PET, HDPE, LDPE and PP and encourage the design of easier to recycle products.
• Industry to deliver two prevention-related National Packaging Targets by 2025: 100 per cent of packaging being reusable, recyclable, or compostable; and a phase out of problematic and unnecessary single-use plastic.[19]
  18. The Committee did not receive much evidence on the above actions. However, this section will briefly discuss evidence received relating to progress against the first four actions. Evidence relating to the National Packaging Targets 2025 will be discussed later in this chapter.

Phase out of polymer types in certain applications

3.19Minderoo Foundation emphasised the importance of polymers, stating that policies that target plastics have historically focused on finished plastic products, ‘with little attention directed at producers of “polymers”, the building blocks for plastics’.[20] This means that there is little transparency across the complete plastics life cycle and therefore ‘governments and regulators lack critical information to design effective policies addressing plastic pollution in all its forms’.[21] Minderoo Foundation recommended that reporting standards are developed that:

• measure total plastic and polymer production, broken down by polymer type and application;
• enable visibility on plastic material composition, including additives and other chemicals used to make plastics; and
• include metrics measuring recycled and/or re-used materials, including their composition (polymers, additives and other chemicals used to make plastic).[22]
  20. Engineers Australia raised that there are currently no limitations on any polymers that are imported in plastic products as Australia does not regulate what additives are included.[23] It suggested that, in addition to the current goals in the NPP, Australia should begin tracking the ingredients of the plastic products that are being imported.[24]
  21. Extended Producer Responsibility and tax levies are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report.
  22. The Department submitted that industry had been making ‘substantial efforts to transition toward certified compostables’, ‘there has been strong progress on EPS loose fill and food and beverage containers’, and that ‘significant progress has already been made to phase out PVC labels’.[25]
  23. However, Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre submitted in January 2023 that ‘none of these [targets] have been achieved.’[26]

Plastic Free Beaches program

3.24Boomerang Alliance reported that its Plastic Free Beaches program under the NPP ‘has reduced single use plastic produce use by over 17M items just through the actions of its 1200 members’.[27] It added that ‘all participating cafes have achieved a marked increase in the use of reusable cups’ with some cafes reporting that ‘many days have seen 100 per cent of hot drinks being served in reusable cups’.[28]

3.25However, Boomerang Alliance emphasised that while it was fortunate to have been able to engage with the government on that program, ‘unlike consultation processes established with most states’, there has been little Commonwealth consultation with its community organisations on other aspects of the NPP.[29]

Plastics Design Summit

3.26In March 2020, a National Plastics Summit was held and ‘brought together over 200 leaders and experts from government, industry and community sectors to identify and showcase new ideas and solutions.’[30] The NPP was developed as a result of the Summit.

3.27In December 2021, the then Minister for the Environment, Hon Sussan Ley MP announced that the National Plastics Design Summit would be held in Canberra on 14 February 2022.[31] The NPP said that the intention of the Plastics Design Summit was to ‘fast track industry’s use of more sustainable product design, including a shift to reusable products and plastics that are more likely to be recycled’.[32]

3.28The Committee was unable to find evidence that the National Plastics Design Summit took place, nor did it receive any evidence on its outcomes.

Transitioning to easily recyclable plastics

3.29The Committee received evidence on plastics that are more easily recycled compared to others. These plastics include:

• PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) which is commonly used in plastic bottles.[33]
• HDPE (high-density polyethylene) which is a type of hard plastic used in water, milk and juice bottles, food containers, insulation, and piping systems.[34]
• LDPE (light-density polyethylene) are soft plastics used for plastic bags, bottles and straws.[35]
• PP (polypropylene) is a light plastic used for plastic packaging, plastic parts for machinery and equipment, and for fibres and textiles.[36]
  30. Evidence to the Committee described the high recovery rates of these more easily recyclable plastics. The Australian Beverages Council Ltd (ABCL) noted that PET ‘enjoys a recovery rate of over 60 per cent across container deposit schemes, or CDS, which is a percentage far beyond any other plastic type or recovery pathway domestically’.[37] The National Waste Recycling Industry Council said that almost 30per cent of PP was recovered in 2020.[38]
  31. The ABCL raised that the beverage industry welcomes the ‘opportunity to use recycled content and recycled PET in particular in all of its packaging’, however there is ‘not enough recycled PET available in Australia, because it's being sent overseas’. It called for the government to keep recycled PET here in Australia to be used by beverage manufacturers.[39]
  32. The Department did not provide an update on industry’s progress in transitioning towards higher-value, easily recyclable plastics such as PET, HDPE, LDPE and PP and encouraging the design of easier to recycle products.

Recycling – taking responsibility for our plastics

3.33The second key component of the NPP is ‘recycling’. It provides nine actions for Australia to take responsibility for its plastic waste:

• Regulate waste plastic exports by banning the export of unsorted mixed plastic from 1 July 2021 and unprocessed single polymer or resin plastics from 1 July 2022.
• $600 million of recycling funding for Australia’s recycling industry (the Recycling Modernisation Fund) and the Modern Manufacturing Strategy ($1.5 billion).
• Invest $7 million to support 10 projects through the National Product Stewardship Investment Fund, to establish new plastics product stewardship schemes and expand existing schemes.
• Assess and identify collection processes and the feasibility of reprocessing packaging waste in remote and regional areas through partnerships.
• Industry to deliver two recycling-related National Packaging Targets by 2025: 70 per cent of plastic packaging being recycled or composted; 50 per cent of average recycled content included in packaging (20 per cent for plastic packaging).
• Used Packaging Materials: The first review of the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011 and Australian Packaging Covenant.
• Establish a National Circular Economy Hub and Marketplace by end of 2021.
• Material Performance Standards: Work across the plastics recycling supply chain to develop nationally consistent performance standards for material recovery facilities to deliver clean feedstock for remanufacturing.
• Businesses to commit to increase their use of recycled content through the APCO’s Member Pledge program.
  34. A tenth goal is listed that had already been completed. The NPP states that ‘the Australian Government has strengthened the Commonwealth Procurement Rules to make sustainability, including the use of recycled materials, part of the value for money assessment for everything it buys.’[40]
  35. The APCO’s Recycled Materials Pledge was announced on 11 May 2022,[41] but the Committee did not receive evidence on its progress or effectiveness.
  36. Similarly, the Committee did not receive evidence on whether a National Circular Economy Hub and Marketplace was established by the end of 2021.
  37. The Committee heard that the Material Performance Standards ‘have not yet eventuated’.[42] The Australian Beverages Council said that it was disappointed as it considers these standards ‘a key component to nationally harmonising recycling and labelling standards, a key to preventing pollution and material leakage into waterways’.[43]
  38. The Committee received some evidence on each remaining goal, discussed in this section. Evidence received on the effectiveness of the National Packaging Targets 2025 will be discussed later in this chapter.

Waste export ban and a lack of a viable market for recycled plastic

3.39In December 2020, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 was enacted, placing a ban on the export of unsorted mixed plastics from 1 July 2021 and unprocessed single polymer or resin plastics from 1 July 2022.[44] The Department said that the Act requires ‘that waste plastic exported from Australia be sorted into single polymers, washed, and further processed prior to export’.[45]

3.40While submitters to the inquiry said that the waste export ban may assist in reducing plastic pollution, it was also noted that Australia is not ready nor has viable markets to reuse all the plastic that is being recovered.[46]

3.41Cleanaway Pty Ltd said that prior to the waste export ban, ‘a significant quantity of used plastics recovered by the industry council members…were sold into destinations which had access to much lower production energy costs and greater consumption capabilities than those of the combined Australian market.’[47] These plastics often re-entered Australia through the ‘importation of finished goods or other measures’.[48]

3.42Cleanaway Pty Ltd added that with the waste export ban now in place, Australia has found that it is ‘[lagging] in its local capability of reusing the materials that the industry is recovering’.[49] It said that:

Our members also remain greatly concerned about investing and building new recycling infrastructure when there is no guaranteed feedstock or commitment from the local manufacturing sector to purchase and use recycled content in a product. It is currently far cheaper for businesses to import new resins than for them to purchase more expensive recycled local resins, due to our higher wages and energy imports as compared to our international counterparts.[50]

3.43Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association Australia highlighted that Australia ‘has a fragmented plastics economy’ due to a ‘lack of standards and coordination across the value chain.’[51] It added that this has ‘allowed the proliferation of materials, formats, labelling, collection schemes, and sorting and reprocessing systems, which collectively hamper the development of effective markets.’[52]

3.44Similarly, Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group raised that unused recovered plastic materials are ‘at greater risk of contributing to pollution in Australia because they have no inherent value.’[53]

3.45Many submitters, such as the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors and Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre supported the development of new end markets for recovered plastics.[54] Similarly, Plastic Oceans Australasia noted that the NPP’s ‘ambitious targets for recycling’ could not be fulfilled until a viable market for recycled plastic is established.[55] It added that there are several barriers, including:

…a lack of demand for the products of recycled plastic, a lack of recycling facilities that can process the volume of plastic waste that could be recycled, and difficulties in collecting plastic for recycling, including problems of contamination.[56]

3.46The Australian Food and Grocery Council and Veolia supported incentives for manufacturers to use the recycled content.[57] The Australian Food and Grocery Council added the importance of the material being a safe quality to meet regulations and consumer expectations, and that it actually is recyclable material:

I know businesses who have had samples of material that might be, for example, for a yoghurt tub that smells like a dirty shoe. You would not put your yoghurt in it. So it is critical that we have standards and traceability through that whole packaging supply chain so that businesses can have that assurance. That would help to drive the demand for recycled content.[58]

3.47Plastic Oceans Australasia expressed a view that government procurement alone would not adequately address the lack of market demand for recycled plastic. It recommended that governments examine existing ‘mechanisms to increase market demand, including mandating recycled content or penalising non-recycled content,’ as well as explicitly allocating fines into infrastructure investment ‘to deliver a circular economy.’[59]

3.48Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group suggested that Australia could learn from New Zealand’s stewardship schemes, such as Plasback, which ‘targets a range of agricultural plastics’.[60] They added that:

The New Zealand Government recognises that they are not big enough to process some waste/resource streams economically at present and therefore leaves the door open to export so that the waste stream is managed, generates economic value and activity, and supports the broader circular economy. With the appropriate checks and balances in place to avoid offshore dumping of material and low-quality recycling this may be an appropriate course of action for Australia – until the domestic recycling sector and market of recyclate is able to catch up.[61]

3.49The Department said that the ‘Recycling Modernisation Fund (RMF) is on track to leverage over $1 billion of total investment from the Australian Government, state and territory governments and industry for new or upgraded infrastructure to sort, process, recycle and remanufacture waste glass, tyres, plastic and paper.’ It added that there have been 47 plastics projects ‘announced under the RMF, and these are expected to deliver over 293,000 tonnes per annum of recycling capacity’.[62]

3.50The Australian Beverages Council praised the RMF and the Modernising Manufacturing Initiative, stating that the ‘government has facilitated positive outcomes for the Australian circular economy’.[63] It added that:

Facilities which will be key to securing Australia’s circular future, such as the Circular Plastics Australia facility in the Albury-Wodonga region were enabled through an RMF partnership between government and the beverage, waste, and packaging industries. This facility, set to process one billion PET bottles into recycled feedstock annually, demonstrates how we can utilise private-public collaborations to create infrastructure domestically for reprocessing materials.[64]

3.51Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group considered that, going forward, ‘there is the need for a gap analysis to be undertaken and that programs such as the RMF target and prioritise specific product/polymer and market/geographic shortfalls.’[65]

3.52Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group suggested that the RMF be broadened to:

…support the establishment of enabling infrastructure and equipment such as balers, chippers, bins and materials handling equipment which are currently excluded from grants programs, and which have the potential to significantly lower the costs of logistics associated with necessary transport movements to accommodate collection and recycling.[66]

National Product Stewardship Investment Fund

3.53The Department said that ‘the National Product Stewardship Investment Fund has supported the development, or expansion, of 24 product stewardship schemes and the establishment of Australia’s first Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence’.[67]

3.54For example, RM Consulting Group said that, along with Dairy Australia and the Vinyl Council of Australia, it was funded to understand the scale of plastics used on farms and what could be done with that plastic. It found that, of approximately 110,000 tonnes of plastic used per annum on farms, most is ‘managed on site or goes to landfill, and only a small proportion is currently recycled or re-used’.[68]

3.55RM Consulting Group added that ‘all the national waste report data that currently comes out doesn't include plastics in the agricultural sector. This was the first time that we had assessed the amount of plastic that is used in that sector.’[69]

3.56Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group praised the Fund as ‘many of the projects funded have identified more granular issues and barriers that prevent them from getting off the ground’.[70] They recommended that the fund:

…should be continued and evolved, either in its present form or through similarly targeted programs. Early-stage funding is likely to be critical for numerous product stewardship initiatives, including those managing plastics, particularly as many are still navigating the “discovery phase” which involves jumping hurdles that have not previously been crossed in Australia. These hurdles add both cost and time delays (which subsequently manifest as costs) to the mobilisation phase. There is much to learn from schemes established globally with the potential to short cut some of the challenges experienced by other developed countries.[71]

National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011

3.57The National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011 (Used Packaging NEPM) is used to manage the environmental impact of packaging waste. The Used Packaging NEPM sets targets for the recycling and recovery of packaging materials, establishes responsibilities for businesses regarding packaging waste management and promotes sustainable packaging practices.[72]

3.58The Australian Packaging Covenant is an agreement between the APCO and federal and state and territory governments. It is established as part of a co-regulatory arrangement under the Used Packaging NEPM which is intended to ‘minimise the environmental impacts of packaging materials by requiring certain companies to improve design, recyclability and product stewardship of their packaging’.[73]

3.59In September 2021, an independent legislative review was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the Used Packaging NEPM in reducing ‘environmental degradation arising from used packaging and encourage re-use and recycling.’[74] The support of the voluntary strategies in the Australian Packaging Covenant was also examined.[75]

3.60The review found that although the Australian Packaging Covenant was effective as a voluntary product stewardship scheme, the Used Packaging NEPM needed reform as it was not fit for purpose.[76] The Department noted that:

At the October 2022 Environment Ministers’ Meeting, ministers agreed to reform the regulation of packaging by 2025, to ensure that all packaging available in Australia is designed to be recovered, reused, recycled and reprocessed safely in line with circular economy principles. …

It is anticipated that legislative reform processes will be undertaken in 2024-25, with a new regulatory framework for packaging to be implemented by the end of 2025.[77]

3.61While the reforms were welcomed,[78] CropLife Australia raised that the results of the review ‘came as no surprise’,[79] and added that:

At present, the coregulatory arrangement requires brand owners to report to their relevant jurisdiction, which may be multiple for those who operate nation-wide businesses, or to become a member of APCO. This co-regulatory arrangement is complex, burdensome on those who are trying to do the right thing and in fact, makes it easier for free riders to gain a competitive advantage and avoid compliance or enforcement.[80]

3.62Plastic Oceans Australasia said that ‘the lack of any enforcement’ of the Used Packaging NEPM ‘has undermined confidence and led to significant free-riding’.[81] It added that the Used Packaging NEPM is ‘at best symbolic’ and ‘at worst greenwashing – by implying that companies are actually taking measures to reduce their contribution to plastic waste when they may not be’.[82]

3.63The NSW Environment Protection Authority stated that ‘while there have been some success stories, more effort is needed’ and said ‘if industry has not taken sufficient action, the NSW Government will consider mandating targets or establishing design standards to address packaging issues’.[83]

Packaging waste in remote and regional areas

3.64There are varying levels of access to reprocessing of plastic waste in remote and regional areas. While a goal of the NPP is to ‘assess and identify collection processes and the feasibility of reprocessing packaging waste in remote and regional areas through partnerships’,[84] submitters to the inquiry raised that the scope of this target should be broadened to encompass non-packaging plastics.[85]

3.65The Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) said that Exmouth, home to Australia’s world heritage Ningaloo Reef, does not have access to recycling collection, as well as many remote communities in the Northern Territory.[86] It added that:

This lack of access to recycling infrastructure in regional and remote areas is the key barrier to increasing recycling rates in those jurisdictions, with 2019-20 data showing that the NT, QLD and WA have the worst plastic packaging recovery rates in Australia.[87]

3.66Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group emphasised the importance of such infrastructure for rural and regional communities, ‘as these regions don’t generate sufficient feedstock to justify investment in recycling infrastructure and therefore are reliant on being able to transport waste resources so that they can be retained in the economy.’[88]

3.67Regarding the fishing and agricultural sectors, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) stated that there was a lack of infrastructure in remote locations. It emphasised the need to establish efficient recycling infrastructure, particularly in ports and major collection points, to enable ‘efficient unloading, sorting, processing, treatment and recycling of waste, including plastics’, especially in regional and remote areas.[89]

Plastics in our daily lives

3.68The third key component of the NPP, ‘plastics in our daily lives’ addresses barriers to recycling correctly and will be discussed in Chapter 3 of this report.

Plastics in our oceans and waterways

3.69The fourth key component of the NPP contains 13 actions that include global action on marine litter, a phase-in of microfibre filters for washing machines, reduction of cigarette butt litter, eliminating pre-production plastic and supporting community-led projects.

3.70A National Plastics Pollution Database will be discussed in Chapter 4 of this report and is expected to be launched in partnership with CSIRO by December 2025.[90] The effectiveness of community campaigns in reducing plastic pollution will also be discussed in Chapter 4.

3.71Global action and the Indonesia Partnership will be discussed in Chapter 5. The Committee did not receive evidence on the progress of projects under the Environment Restoration Fund.

Microfibre filters for washing machines

3.72Washing machines can shed up to 1,500,000 microfibres per wash which are released into the environment via wastewater.[91]

3.73Stakeholders to the inquiry praised the NPP’s goal for ‘an industry-led phase-in of microfibre filters on new residential and commercial washing machines by 1 July 2030’,[92] stating that it is in alignment with French legislation that all new washing machines must be equipped with a microfibre filter from January 1, 2025.[93]

3.74However, Engineers Australia said that having wastewater filters on washing machines is ‘one-half of the issue’ as filters should also be placed on both the incoming and outgoing water supplies as there are plastics that already exist in the environment.[94] It said this will ‘mitigate risks for both ecosystem and human health alike’.[95]

3.75Clean Ocean Foundation raised that although the phase-in of microfibre filters on new washing machines is a useful step, there are significant limitations to stopping microplastics entering the aquatic environment from wastewater treatment plants. It said that this is due to the efficiency of individual filter design and maintenance, legacy issues related to the uptake of new washing machines, population pressures and the level of treatment provided at the wastewater treatment plant.[96]

3.76Further, the Australian Rivers Institute said that while this is an excellent initiative, the timeline should ‘be brought forward from 2030 to as early as possible’.[97]

Reduce cigarette butt litter

3.77The NPP has a goal for the Australian Government to initiate an industry-led cross-sectoral stewardship taskforce to reduce cigarette butt litter in Australia and consider potential stewardship schemes.

3.78Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre told the Committee that they are ‘yet to see any concrete actions’.[98] No More Butts added that:

In late June 2022, No More Butts spoke with several Department representatives who advised that due to considerations under Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC), the approach to the formation of the task force may need to be reconsidered. In December 2022, after being prompted for an update to share in this submission, the same representatives confirmed that there hasn’t been any progress on Action 4.[99]

3.79Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre recommended that ‘a Taskforce needs to be initiated as a first step’ and ‘a Product Stewardship Scheme for cigarette butts and e-cigarettes’ should be introduced.[100]

Stormwater and Operation Clean Sweep

3.80The impact of plastic pollution entering the marine environment through stormwater pathways will be discussed in Chapter 4. A goal of the NPP is that the Australian Government ‘partner with states and territories and the CSIRO on solutions to prevent plastic debris entering the marine environment via stormwater’.[101]

3.81Many stakeholders expressed concern about how easy it is for macro and microplastics to enter stormwater drains, and there was discussion about ways in which this can be prevented. Total Environment Centre said that many councils around Australia install gross pollutant traps (GPTs) in their stormwater drains designed to capture larger litter items from the streets, but they are not designed to capture smaller plastics or microplastics.[102]

3.82Ms Jo Larkin, a Citizen Scientist at AUSMAP, emphasised that ‘microplastic removal from stormwater systems is a complex issue and a daunting task’ and suggested that ‘a comprehensive review is needed to look at all of the alternatives for capturing microplastics once they have entered the stormwater system’ as well as a state-wide Microplastic Reduction Strategy.[103] Ms Larkin added that:

The most effective solution for reducing microplastic pollution is to prevent it leaving the source. For change to occur, the plastic industry must own this issue. Whilst regulation should still remain the fundamental approach, improvements in practice are more likely to be sustainable if the plastic factories themselves are involved in driving the change.[104]

3.83Ms Larkin recommended that minimum standards should be introduced for stormwater traps to ensure that microplastics can be removed.[105]

3.84Australian Rivers Institute suggested that an assessment of the effectiveness of stormwater filters to remove microplastics is conducted, and if this is effective, then there should be wider deployment of filters to pre-treat stormwater.[106]

3.85Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre suggested that a review should be conducted into the role of sewage and stormwater systems in contributing to marine plastic pollution.[107]

3.86CSIRO told the Committee that it is working closely with Sydney Coastal Councils Group and Sydney Olympic Park Authority to pilot GPT sensors that ‘help with waste management at a very local scale with our frontline workers and councils’, and to understand how much plastic goes into those stormwater drains.[108]

3.87The Department said that local governments, such as its Reef Guardian Councils are tackling plastic pollution through activities such as waste and recycling, stormwater management (for example, GPTs and other methods) and community engagement. It added that it partners with the local governments to ‘increase capacity and share knowledge, including looping in partners such as Tangaroa Blue Foundation to provide expert advice’.[109]

3.88A goal of the NPP is for ‘industry to participate in Operation Clean Sweep to eliminate pre-production plastic resin pellet, flake, recycled chip and powder loss’.[110] Operation Clean Sweep is an international program implemented in over 60 countries including Australia, Europe, New Zealand and Canada.[111]

3.89The Port Phillip EcoCentre emphasised that Operation Clean Sweep ‘should be a mandatory, not voluntary, protocol across the plastics supply chain, from transport to manufacturing and recycling’ and should be nationally coordinated.[112]

3.90Tangaroa Blue Foundation agreed and said that ‘proven mitigation strategies such as Operation Clean Sweep can only be truly effective if everyone from resin suppliers through to manufacturers and recyclers are involved. The best way to do this is to require their participation.’[113]

Ghost Nets Initiative

3.91Ghost nets are a serious environmental issue in Northern Australia which has one of the highest densities of ghost nets in the world.[114] To combat this, the NPP states that ‘the Australian Government has committed $14.8 million to remove ghost nets and marine debris pollution from strategic locations in Northern Australia’.[115]

3.92The Department told the Committee about the Ghost Nets Initiative and said that the project is considering ways of developing a new recycling pathway for marine debris and ghost nets and prototyping the use of new technology for remanufacturing ghost nets. The Department added:

These projects have found that although there may be promising technological solutions available for reprocessing ocean plastics, particularly in remote coastal communities across northern Australia, there are significant barriers to adoption. This is largely due to the lack of existing waste infrastructure and access to markets for recyclables, and very high transport costs. Any new recycling pathway for marine debris is unlikely to be cost-effective and therefore would require ongoing external funding or introduced levies.[116]

3.93The Indigenous Ranger Coastal clean-up Project is a large component of the Ghost Nets Initiative. The Department said that it has ‘16 Indigenous ranger groups engaged in the project who have conducted 269 clean-up activities removing more than 300 ghost nets and…over 300 cubic metres of marine debris from beaches and reefs in the Gulf of Carpentaria’.[117]

3.94The Northern Territory (NT) Government raised however, that this investment isn’t enough to comprehensively address the issue. It also raised other issues, such as that ‘there is no centralised centre for leading the coordination of net retrieval’ and there is ‘plenty of anecdotal evidence but limited data on the extent’ of ghost nets in the NT.[118] The NT Government added that:

The work identifying and retrieving ghost nets in the Gulf of Carpentaria by Indigenous rangers and supported by the Australian Government, should be expanded beyond the Gulf to other areas of the Territory’s coast. An identification program to spot and then track the nets across the coast is needed to understand the scale and pinpoint locations. It has been identified by NT Fisheries that a dedicated vessel or vessels with the appropriate equipment fitted could aid the timely retrieval of the nets. Experience has shown that the reliance on existing Defence, Fisheries or Border Patrol vessels, that have other priorities, or the contracting of expensive private vessels, has led to extensive time delays in net retrievals.[119]

3.95Further, the NT Government said that Australia could offer more support to Southeast Asian countries ‘by funding a plan that targets the source of ghost nets and marine debris washing up on Australian coasts’.[120]

3.96The AMCS said that the impact of the government’s investment into ghost nets is not yet clear.[121]

3.97In September 2023, CSIRO, in collaboration with Parks Australia, released a report on a pilot study that explored recycling pathways for ghost nets in the Gulf of Carpentaria. The report recommends ‘establishing a centralised pre-processing hub’ where ‘ghost nets and other marine debris could be sorted, cleaned, shredded, and turned into pellets. The pellets could supply existing polymer re-processors to convert the material into new products.’[122] CSIRO added that:

A pre-processing recycling hub would keep costs down and efficiency up. Ghost nets could be consolidated with other waste streams. This means nets could be collected with other waste, transported in the same way, and processed at a central location. The second stage would be establishing a recycling industry in Far Northern Queensland and the Northern Territory.

This approach would build a circular economy and establish a material supply chain. It would also support the development of community infrastructure, education, and training.[123]

Marine Debris Threat Abatement Plan

3.98A goal of the NPP is for the government to continue to implement the Threat Abatement Plan for the impacts of marine debris on the vertebrate wildlife of Australia’s coasts and oceans.[124] The Department said that the Threat Abatement Plan:

…binds the Commonwealth to respond to the impact of marine debris on vertebrate marine life, and identifies the research, management and other actions needed to reduce the impacts of marine debris on affected species. It includes a range of management approaches for research and monitoring, public outreach and education, preventing and reducing debris from land-based sources as well as addressing marine-based sources and removing accumulated marine debris from the coastal marine environment.[125]

3.99The FRDC raised that the link between the NPP and the Threat Abatement Plan is not clear and said that there is an opportunity to update the Threat Abatement Plan to ensure that its components work together with the NPP.[126]

3.100Further, No Balloon Release Australia said that although the Threat Abatement Plan mentions balloons, ‘no action has resulted’.[127]

3.101The Department confirmed that the Threat Abatement Plan will be reviewed but did not provide a timeframe.[128]

Research, innovation and data

3.102The final key component of the NPP provides five actions for Australia to better understand plastic volumes, value, and movement and to invest in new recycling technologies focused on reducing plastic waste. The five actions are:

• Invest $20.6 million to create the public-facing Waste Data Visualisation Platform.
• Cooperative Research Centres Projects Grants (CRC-P): $29.1 million to research projects that demonstrate innovative ways to recycle plastics and reduce plastics going to landfill.
• Expand the Australian Plastics Recycling Survey to provide a comprehensive picture of the consumption, flow and recycling of plastics in Australia.
• CSIRO’s National Circular Economy Roadmap for Plastics, Glass, Paper and Tyres: Pathways for unlocking future growth opportunities for Australia will be used by governments, industry and researchers to inform future decisions on investment, policy development and research priorities.
• Waste impact management will be a National Environmental Science Program (NESP) cross-cutting priority to support policy development, program management and regulatory processes in both marine and terrestrial environments.
  103. The Committee received little to no evidence on whether the public-facing Waste Data Visualisation Platform was developed, and on the effectiveness of current Cooperative Research Centres Projects Grants.
  104. The Department did not provide an update on whether the Australian Plastics Recycling Survey was expanded.
  105. This section will briefly discuss evidence received on CSIRO’s National Circular Economy Roadmap for Plastics, Glass, Paper and Tyres: Pathways for unlocking future growth opportunities for Australia and the National Environmental Science Program.

National Circular Economy Roadmap 2021

3.106CSIRO explained that the goals of a circular economy are to ‘retain products in productive use for as long as possible, to gradually de-couple economic activity from finite resources and to design waste out of the system’.[129] Its National Circular Economy Roadmap for Plastics, Glass, Paper and Tyres: Pathways for unlocking future growth opportunities for Australia (the Roadmap) was published in January 2021 and identified ‘opportunities across the whole supply chain of how waste can be avoided, and materials can be re-used or recycled.’[130]

3.107The Roadmap outlines five priorities to develop a circular economy for plastics in Australia:

• Design and collection: design packaging to be 100 per cent recyclable and optical sorting technology to reduce contamination levels and sort plastics into types.
• Infrastructure: integrate waste processing, develop new facilities for plastic processing, and create models for uncollected plastics.
• Market development and innovation: increase government procurement of recycled plastic, set standards, address adoption standards and a national program for plastics research.
• Circular economy vision: enhance product stewardship, run campaigns to reduce plastics pollution, increased adoption of the Australasian Recycling Label and education on household recycling.
• Governance: provide grants, streamline approvals for recycling infrastructure, phase out or ban problematic single-use plastics and engage in international initiatives.[131]
  108. While the Committee did not receive enough evidence to fully comment on the Roadmap and whether it has been used by ‘governments, industry and researchers to inform future decisions on investment, policy development and research priorities’,[132] some submitters made suggestions generally about how Australia could better implement a circular economy.
  109. WWF-Australia stated that while the Roadmap provides ‘a solid basis for further work’ and ‘a major improvement on the status quo’, it is more of a background and options paper than a roadmap and its status ‘remains unclear’.[133] Instead, WWF-Australia proposed the implementation of an Australian circular economy package that would ‘consolidate and build on current waste and plastics plans at the federal level, and waste and circular economy strategies at state and territory level’, such as CSIRO’s Roadmap and the Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre.[134]
  110. AMCS recommended the development of an overarching circular economy strategy modelled on the European Union circular economy framework.[135]
  111. Both WWF-Australia and the AMCS recommended Australia introduce a ‘Circular Economy (Plastics) Act’.[136] WWF-Australia said this would ‘enact the plastics-component of the wider circular economy strategy and would provide the basis for further strengthening and/or alignment with international treaty obligations from 2025’.[137]
  112. WWF-Australia and AMCS emphasised that the new legislation should encompass nationally harmonised bans on single-use plastics, mandatory national packaging targets and plastic consumption reduction targets, as well as requirements for certification, labelling and recycled content, and standardisation and review of container deposit schemes.[138]
  113. Flinders University voiced that ‘industry, research and education must work together closely to achieve significant progress towards a circular economy.’[139]

National Environmental Science Program

3.114The NESP is a long-term commitment by the Australian Government with applied environment and climate science to support world-class collaborative and practical research.[140] Some stakeholders to the inquiry praised the NESP for funding important research projects to inform decision-making and action. For example, the Australian Institute of Marine Science said that it is currently collaborating with the CSIRO under the NESP:

…to establish a standardised microplastics field collection decision workflow and, where possible, method harmonisation. This will assist researchers in selecting the method most suited to the environmental compartment, the sampling location, and their research question. The intent of the workflow is to support future research and monitoring projects in the marine environment.[141]

3.115Similarly, Dr Nina Wootton told the Committee that the University of Adelaide's School of Biological Sciences and Environment Institute recently completed a project through the NESP. The project found:

…a need for the harmonisation of methods for collection, processing and reporting of microplastics; comprehensive information on the local presence, sources and pathways of plastic pollution; and understanding the risk of harm to individuals and ecosystems, including human health.[142]

3.116Dr Wootton added that, through the NESP, they are ‘now working on developing standard operating procedures for microplastic sampling in water, sediment and biota’.[143]

3.117In line with the NPP’s goal for waste impact management to be a NESP ‘cross-cutting priority to support policy development, program management and regulatory processes in both marine and terrestrial environments’, the Department said that current research projects include:

• synthesising current data and identifying key knowledge gaps for the management of microplastic pollution in south-eastern Australian coastal waters, including microplastics occurrence, sources and pathways in coastal and marine environments
• developing tools to quantify microplastic contamination to underpin identification of contamination hotspots and sources, decision-support tools and evidence-based priority actions towards policy development
• developing a risk framework for understanding impacts to [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999]-listed species
• developing a monitoring protocol for the systematic sampling, identification and analysis of microplastics in a variety of different environments, such as sand, soil and water
• providing critical information to a range of research-users about the current and emerging risks to the marine environment of contaminants – including microplastics – associated with wastewater discharges
• identifying control and management options to minimise the impacts of secondary microplastics (e.g. waste tyres, synthetic grass, marine and stormwater debris), for example through re-manufacturing of materials or providing alternative materials.[144]

The effectiveness of the National Plastics Plan

3.118Overall, the Committee heard that there was some support for the NPP, with some stakeholders praising its approach to tackling the plastic waste issue and encompassing elements including recycling, innovation, single-use plastics bans and marine pollution.[145] In addition, many stakeholders supported Australia’s approach to the management of plastics through a circular economy.[146]

3.119However, the NPP was also widely criticised because it lacks clear targets and time-bound goals, does not assist industry to deliver measurable change, focuses on recycling plastics rather than reducing consumption at the source, and underrepresents microplastics. The Committee heard that, in its current form, the NPP would not support the Australian Government’s goal to end plastic pollution by 2040 as it has not been effective in reducing plastic waste.[147] For example, Plastic Free Foundation commented that actions in the NPP ‘appear to be somewhat of an ad hoc list of funded projects without a clear strategy or application process that would create a level playing field.’[148]

3.120Many stakeholders expressed concern regarding the NPP’s lack of clear targets and enforceability that could better assist state, territory and local governments and industry to deliver measurable change.[149] Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc argued that ‘a more coherent, holistic and integrated plan to end plastic is needed’, adding that the NPP should include:

…mandatory product stewardship schemes and enforceable obligations that eliminate the leakage or disposal of plastic into the marine and terrestrial environment, including small-scale pollutants like plastic feedstock, which cause massive cumulative harm.[150]

3.121Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc and Flinders University agreed that the NPP should have greater reporting and transparency measures in place to monitor progress and ensure accountability.[151]Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc added that initiatives adopted by the government should be evaluated ‘to ensure they are effective and have not produced perverse or unintended outcomes.’[152]

3.122Plastic Oceans Australasia similarly argued that legislation should be enacted that mandates that every participant in the NPP publishes ‘an annual performance statement’. It stated that this would allow participants to ‘report on the measures they have taken to meet their target, how much plastic they have removed from the waste stream, and the measures they intend to take in the following year to meet their target’.[153]

3.123Others criticised the NPP due to its focus on recovery and recycling of plastics, rather than the reduction of plastics at the source. For example, the Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association Australia said that, to date, the NPP and waste policies ‘have had limited to no significant impact on plastic pollution…due to their focus on end-of-pipeline management rather than embedding circular economy principles’.[154]

3.124Plastic Free Foundation argued that:

Australia’s approach to managing plastics has been largely focused at the “bottom” of the waste hierarchy – starting at the point of disposal with efforts aimed at reducing waste to landfill rather than reducing production and consumption and implementing mandatory upstream measures that are required for a circular economy and would stop the problem at the source. In our view, shifting to upstream measures such as mandatory use of recycled content and product stewardship whereby plastics are kept in the economy and out of the environment.[155]

3.125Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group similarly argued that:

…the key to reducing plastics pollution in oceans and waterways will come through transforming the economic value and thereby the perception of plastics so that it is seen as a valuable resource rather a dispensable medium. The key to this will be through policy settings and actions that drive economic and industry reform.[156]

3.126Engineers Australia proposed that the handling and storage classification of nurdles (small granules of plastic used to make plastic products) should be amended to ‘dangerous goods’ as they are currently unregulated.[157]

3.127P.S. Our Beaches and WWF-Australia raised that there was a lack of consultation when developing the NPP, resulting in ‘avoidable flaws’ such as ‘poorly defined standards and targets’.[158] WWF-Australia added that ‘deeper and more structured engagement with individuals and organisations that have been working on this issue for many years could have resulted in a more collaboratively designed, substantive and comprehensive plan, in addition to a shared understanding of the intent and direction’.[159]

3.128The Committee also heard other suggestions of how the NPP could be improved. For example, the FRDC proposed that the NPP should support more initiatives and additional investments that focus on alternative solutions to:

• integrate management of land and water resources
• develop bio-based and compostable alternatives to plastics
• smartly design renewable and reusable solutions, and
• further develop recycling and repair channels.[160]
  129. Flinders University proposed eliminating the existing plastic waste that cannot be recycled efficiently or composted.[161]
  130. The FRDC added that there should be more consideration of bio-derived compostable alternatives for remote communities, where advanced recycling infrastructure is economically unviable.[162]
  131. No Balloon Release Australia said that the NPP has had no effect on reducing the environmental impact of balloons and suggested that there should be regulations managing access to helium to stop balloon releases at the source.[163]
  132. As discussed earlier in this chapter, Australia lacks an effective or viable market to use its recycled plastic. In this regard, Plastic Oceans Australasia recommended that ‘until these market failures can be addressed, policy and action must focus on reducing the amount of plastic that enters the economy, and on re-using the plastic already in circulation’.[164]
  133. The Department acknowledged that there is more work ahead and said that it intended to revise the NPP in 2023 to chart a sustainable path for plastic usage in Australia.[165] The Committee is not aware of whether the NPP was revised in 2023.

National Packaging Targets 2025

3.134Meeting the National Packaging Targets 2025 is a goal for two of the key actions of the NPP. The four targets to be achieved by 2025 are:

• 100 per cent of all Australia’s packaging will be reusable, recyclable or compostable
• 70 per cent of Australia’s plastic packaging will be recycled or composted
• 50 per cent average recycled content will be included across all packaging
• problematic and unnecessary single-use plastic packaging will be phased out through design, innovation or introduction of alternatives.[166]
  135. While some stakeholders praised the targets for aiming to decrease the proportion of virgin plastic in overall plastic consumption,[167] others raised concerns about the feasibility of meeting the targets by 2025 and about the overreliance on voluntary industry action to resolve these packaging practices.[168] Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre emphasised that:

For over 20 years, the Commonwealth has allowed a voluntary, industry-based approach to packaging through the Australian Packaging Covenant (APCO, established in 1999). This approach has failed, as amply demonstrated by the collapse of the REDcycle scheme. A small voluntary scheme, artificially amplified by the supermarket and product sectors for greenwash marketing purposes and through use of labelling - that lacked credible commitment to become mainstreamed and avoided use of the recovered material.[169]

3.136Similarly, Cleanaway Pty Ltd said that:

…[it is] both inconceivable and completely unrealistic to contemplate how the nation can possibly improve its recycling recovery performance by an additional 180 per cent in over two years time, given that over the past 20 years the best we have achieved has been a 25 per cent diversion.[170]

3.137In addition, the AMCS said that Australia was not on track to meet its current packaging targets and would only achieve a maximum recycling rate of 36 per cent by 2025. It reported that Australia’s recycled rates have remained static at 13 per cent, with no progression since 2016. It also indicated regression in certain measures, finding that:

• only 16% of plastic packaging was recycled in the 2019-20 financial year, down from 18% the previous year.
• only 60% of plastic packaging was found to be easily recyclable.
• post-consumer recycled content accounted for just 3% of plastic packaging on the market.
• only 4% of soft plastics were recycled.[171]
  138. Cleanaway Pty Ltd similarly reported that Australia may only meet a third of the targets due to the timing of the types of recycling infrastructure needed. For example, it said that chemcycling will not be in effect until 2026 to 2030 and there is not enough supply for mechanical recycling for it to receive more investment.[172]
  139. The absence of tangible progress in reaching the National Packaging Targets was attributed by some to the framework’s scope. To illustrate, WWF-Australia raised that the absence of a ‘clear and overarching plastic consumption reduction target or strategy’ created difficulties in meeting the 2025 targets.[173]
  140. The Boomerang Alliance and the Total Environment Centre said that the individual targets were ‘poorly specified’ and failed to establish priorities for interim goals.[174] They also said that the packaging sector, which relied on voluntary or co-regulatory methods, has played a role in the failure to meet the necessary recycling targets.[175]
  141. The NSW Environment Protection Authority raised that the lack of a national mandate for any of the targets has resulted in ad-hoc action in plastics across industries, states and territories.[176]
  142. The AMCS also said that there has been a practice by many large companies ‘to divert attention from their true plastic footprint’. It added that some problematic practices include ‘lightweighting (reducing the thickness of plastic packaging) to give a false sense of plastic reduction or placing an overemphasis on small pilots that are not scaled into changes across their product lines’.[177]
  143. To address these challenges, Yarra Riverkeeper Association said that the government should take more urgent and effective action.[178] Specifically, several submissions encouraged the Australian government to establish clear and attainable goals for plastic reduction and recycling by defining measurable and achievable targets, and effective regulatory tools to ensure a precise direction for the industry.[179]
  144. The Australian Food and Grocery Council, the Australian Council of Recycling, and the National Retail Association, for example, contended that fostering a circular economy requires ‘research, development and safety/quality testing of new packaging formats, and changes to equipment which have a significant cost’.[180]
  145. In April 2023, the APCO released its Review of the 2025 National Packaging Targets which contained four key findings:

1While the 2025 Targets are driving a transformation in packaging in Australia, they are not on track to be met by 2025.

2Longer-term vision is needed to guide action.

3Collaboration is needed across the entire packaging system.

4Strong and coordinated interventions are needed on essential packaging material streams.[181]

Committee Comment

3.146Australia’s approach to managing plastics has been predominantly focused on the end stages of the waste hierarchy, not at the source. Efforts have been largely focused on consumers minimising waste to landfill, rather than reducing the amount of plastic production. The Committee considers there is a pressing need to shift the focus onto industry to reduce production and consumption while also managing the plastics that are already in the environment.

3.147In this regard, the Committee agrees with the evidence that the National Plastics Plan (NPP) is fragmented, too broad and not fit for purpose. The NPP is less of a strategic plan and more of a disjointed compilation of policies.

3.148Some of the policies and goals included in the NPP were already completed prior to the plan being developed, turning them into mere checkboxes without contributing to meaningful progress. This has resulted in there being little to no progress towards the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution by 2040 which Australia joined in November 2022.

3.149The Committee was disappointed that not enough evidence was received during this inquiry, particularly from the Department, to fully assess the effectiveness of each of the key actions under the NPP. It appears that some actions were not completed, perhaps as a consequence of the change in government in 2022.

3.150The Committee sees an opportunity for the Australian Government to develop an updated NPP that contains clear targets with time-bound goals, as well as reporting and transparency measures to monitor progress and accountability among all stakeholders, particularly industry and government. This requires a formal consultation process with all interested parties and developed with state and territory governments.

3.151The Committee believes that further measures, beyond those outlined in the current NPP, are required to combat plastic pollution. The current NPP does not specifically address or take action to combat microplastic pollution. An updated NPP must contain a comprehensive definition of microplastics, including effective mitigation measures particularly through industry action.

3.152An updated NPP must also be based on an overarching circular economy strategy, modelled on the European Union’s framework. While a good resource, the Committee considers that CSIRO’s National Circular Economy Roadmap for Plastics, Glass, Paper and Tyres: Pathways for unlocking future growth opportunities for Australia does not have time-bound goals and is more of a background paper than a strategy.

3.153The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water and in consultation with the states and territories, industry and the community, develop an updated National Plastics Plan.

An updated National Plastics Plan should:

• contain reporting and transparency measures to monitor progress and accountability among all stakeholders and be based on an overarching circular economy strategy.
• be developed with stakeholders to promote sustainable practices and recycling, and responsible waste management, as well as developing transition plans.
• be in place within 12 months from the tabling date of this report, allowing that implementation would be progressive.
  154. The Committee considers that there needs to be greater scrutiny of the progress of an updated NPP. The Committee considers that the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water must play a more substantial role in monitoring and enforcement of the progress of an updated NPP.
  155. The Committee believes that the progress of key actions in an updated NPP are of importance to all Australians and therefore the Australian Government should report annually to Parliament on the progress of government, industry and non-government organisations on measures taken to meet key actions. The report should also include how much plastic has been removed from the waste stream.

3.156The Committee recommends that the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water report annually to Parliament, through its Annual Report, on the progress of key actions of an updated National Plastics Plan.

3.157With the waste export ban in place and the lack of a viable end market for recovered plastic, there is concern that unused recycled plastic could become a source of plastic pollution in Australia due to its lack of value, and the absence of standards and coordination across the value chain. The Committee is concerned that this will be an important factor in Australia not being able to meet its ambitious recycling targets.

3.158The Committee noted the evidence from a range of submitters that there is a role for the Australian Government in the development of a sustainable end market for recycled materials to increase demand for the products that use recycled plastic. In this regard, an incentive or mandate should be in place, to ensure that there is a commitment from the local manufacturing sector to use at least 30 per cent recycled content in their products. This figure is consistent with the plastic packaging tax imposed in the United Kingdom (discussed in more detail in Chapter 3). The Committee considers that this should be increased progressively to 50 per cent recycled content by 2030.

3.159The Committee recommends that the Australian Government prioritise a sustainable end market for recovered plastics as a matter of urgency. An end market should consider the need for incentives or mandates to encourage the local plastic manufacturing sector to use at least 30 per cent recycled content.

In the development of a sustainable end market, the Australian Government should consider options for rural and remote areas.

3.160The lack of recycling infrastructure in regional and remote areas is directly contributing to decreased recycling rates in those areas, with there being little other options for plastics to be sent to landfill or disposed of by burning.

3.161Residents of these areas are not given the choice and may also be limited in their options to purchase less plastic packaging. The Committee is pleased that support was given to increasing recycling infrastructure capacity in these areas through the Recycling Modernisation Fund Regional and Remote Stream. However, there still needs to be further consideration of what happens to plastic in these areas.

3.162The Committee considers that the Department should investigate the development of plastic disposal options which would be viable in regional and remote areas. Development of these options should be prioritised and should build on work already undertaken.

3.163The Committee recommends that the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water undertake a feasibility study into appropriate plastic disposal options for regional and remote areas, such as recycling plants, with an aim to have a minimum of two pilot programs commencing by December 2025.

3.164The Committee is pleased that action has been taken through the Ghost Nets Initiative but remains concerned that local communities do not have resources to manage the handling and disposal of ghost nets that end up on remote beaches.

3.165The Committee was also pleased to see the release of a pilot study by CSIRO and Parks Australia on recycling pathways for ghost nets in the Gulf of Carpentaria in September 2023. As noted earlier, the pilot study proposes a strategy to manage ghost nets that uses existing infrastructure and is based on circular economy principles. The Committee considers that there is value in this study and the first stage goal to establish a centralised preprocessing hub should be investigated for funding.

3.166The Committee recommends that the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water investigate the viability of establishing a centralised preprocessing hub for ghost nets through the Ghost Nets Initiative that addresses barriers to processing ghost nets in remote areas.

3.167The Committee was concerned to hear that Australia may not meet its National Packaging Targets by 2025 as the likelihood of meeting the targets relies on the voluntary actions of industry.

3.168The Committee considers that if Australia is serious about meeting its ambitious targets, the National Packaging Targets 2025 must be revised and strengthened with clearer and measurable goals that are mandated across industry and the states and territories. The Committee strongly urges the Australian Government to take a stronger leadership role in coordinating interventions across industry and nationally.

3.169The Committee recommends that the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water investigate whether some of the National Packaging Targets 2025 should be mandated and work with industry to revise and strengthen the Targets to ensure clearer and measurable goals.

Footnotes

[1]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), Submission 59, pages 4, 9

[2]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 4

[3]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 4

[4]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 8

[5]DCCEEW, Submission 59, pages 9-10

[6]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 12

[7]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 10

[8]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 10

[9]DCCEEW, Submission 59, pages 10-11

[10]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 11

[11]DCCEEW, National Waste Policy Action Plan Annexure 2022, September 2022, pages 4, 6, 12

[12]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 12

[13]Environment Ministers’ Meeting Agreed Communiqué, 9 June 2023, pages 1-3

[14]The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP, Minister for the Environment and Water, Media release, ‘Environment Ministers step in to cut packaging waste’, 9 June 2023

[15]Environment Ministers’ Meeting Agreed Communiqué, 10 November 2023, pages 1-2

[16]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 11

[17]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 12

[18]Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, National Plastics Plan 2021, p. 5

[19]Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, National Plastics Plan 2021, p. 5

[20]Minderoo Foundation, Submission 48, p. 6

[21]Minderoo Foundation, Submission 48, p. 6

[22]Minderoo Foundation, Submission 48, p. 6

[23]Ms Kala Senathirajah, Deputy Chair, College of Environmental Engineering Board, Engineers Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 23

[24]Ms Kala Senathirajah, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 23

[25]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 30

[26]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 10

[27]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 30

[28]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 49

[29]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 26

[30]Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, National Plastics Plan 2021, p. 1

[31]Australian Food and Grocery Council, ‘Industry welcomes the national plastics design summit’, Media Release, December 2021, www.afgc.org.au/news-and-media/2021/12/industry-welcomes-the-national-plastics-design-summit

[32]Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, National Plastics Plan 2021, p. 5

[33]Mr Geoff Parker, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Beverages Council Ltd, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 11 August 2023, p. 7

[34]Australian Academy of Science, Submission 61.1, p. 2

[35]Australian Academy of Science, Submission 61.1, p. 2

[36]See, for example: CSIRO, Submission 8.1, p. 8; AdrecoPlastics, ‘Polypropylene Plastic Uses’, adrecoplastics.co.uk/polypropylene-uses/#:~:text=Polypropylene%20(PP)%20is%20one%20of,and%20even%20fibres%20and%20textiles, viewed 24 April 2024

[37]Mr Geoff Parker, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Beverages Council Ltd, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 11 August 2023, p. 7

[38]National Waste Recycling Industry Council, Submission 64, p. 4

[39]Mr Geoff Parker, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Beverages Council Ltd, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 11 August 2023, p. 9

[40]Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, National Plastics Plan 2021, p. 7

[41]Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, ‘APCO announces recycled materials pledge’, Media Release, 11 May 2022, www.apco.org.au/news/20Y9e00000000w1EAA

[42]Australian Beverages Council, Submission 40, p. 11

[43]Australian Beverages Council, Submission 40, p. 11

[44]Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, National Plastics Plan 2021, p. 6

[45]DCCEEW, Submission 59, pages 11-12

[46]Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 7; Mr Brian Dalitz, Head of Commodities, Cleanaway Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 8; Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 2

[47]Mr Brian Dalitz, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 8

[48]Mr Brian Dalitz, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 8

[49]Mr Brian Dalitz, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 8

[50]Mr Brian Dalitz, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 9

[51]Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association Australia, Submission 55, p. 3

[52]Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association Australia, Submission 55, p. 3

[53]Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 7

[54]Council of Capital City Lord Mayors, Submission 37, p. 3; Australian Food and Grocery Council, Australian Council of Recycling and National Retail Association, Submission 62, p. 9; Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, pages 3, 18

[55]Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 2

[56]Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 2

[57]Ms Tanya Barden, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Food and Grocery Council, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 11 August 2023, p. 3; Veolia, Submission 54, p. 2

[58]Ms Tanya Barden, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 11 August 2023, p. 3

[59]Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p.3

[60]Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 7

[61]Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 7

[62]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 13

[63]Australian Beverages Council, Submission 40, p. 11

[64]Australian Beverages Council, Submission 40, p. 11

[65]Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 8

[66]Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 4

[67]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 13

[68]Dr Anne-Maree Boland, Principal, RM Consulting Group, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 23

[69]Dr Anne-Maree Boland, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 23

[70]Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 7

[71]Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 7

[72]National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011

[73]Australian Marine Conservation Society, Submission 45, p. 11

[74]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 14

[75]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 14

[76]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 14

[77]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 14

[78]NSW Environment Protection Authority, Submission 29, p. 2

[79]CropLife Australia, Submission 35, p. 5

[80]CropLife Australia, Submission 35, p. 5

[81]Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 2

[82]Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 2

[83]NSW Environment Protection Authority, Submission 29, p. 3

[84]Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, National Plastics Plan 2021, p. 7

[85]Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 4

[86]Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS), Submission 45, p. 20

[87]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 20

[88]Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 4

[89]Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Submission 43, p.5

[90]CSIRO, DCCEEW – National plastic pollution monitoring & storm water project, www.research.csiro.au/marinedebris/projects-2/projects/dcceew-national-plastic-pollution-monitoring-storm-water-project/, viewed 29 January 2024

[91]Australian Rivers Institute, Submission 3, p. 3

[92]Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, National Plastics Plan 2021, p. 10

[93]Flinders University, Submission 67, p. 4; Clean Ocean Foundation, Submission 33, p. 8

[94]Mr Simon Koger, Senior Policy Adviser, Climate Change, Engineers Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 24

[95]Engineers Australia, Submission 11, p. 4

[96]Clean Ocean Foundation, Submission 33, p. 8

[97]Australian Rivers Institute, Submission 3, p. 3

[98]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 10

[99]No More Butts, Submission 47, p. 7

[100]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, pages 10, 13

[101]Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, National Plastics Plan 2021, p. 10

[102]Dr Michelle Blewitt, Program Director, Australian Microplastic Assessment Project, Total Environment Centre, Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 26 June 2023, p. 3

[103]Ms Jo Larkin, Submission 25, p. 5

[104]Ms Jo Larkin, Submission 25, p. 6

[105]Ms Jo Larkin, Submission 25, p. 7

[106]Australian Rivers Institute, Submission 3, p. 3

[107]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 9

[108]Dr Britta Denise Hardesty, Senior Principal Research Scientist, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 13

[109]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 21

[110]Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, National Plastics Plan 2021, p. 10

[111]Operation Clean Sweep, ‘OCS Around the World’, opcleansweep.org/about/ocs-around-the-world/, viewed 24 April 2024

[112]Ms April Seymore, Executive Officer, Port Phillip EcoCentre, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2024, p. 15; Ms Vanessa Shambrook, Impact Team Leader, Port Phillip EcoCentre, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2024, p. 21

[113]Mrs Heidi Tait, Chief Executive Officer, Tangaroa Blue Foundation, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 28

[114]Northern Territory Government, Submission 60, p. 3

[115]Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, National Plastics Plan 2021, p. 10

[116]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 19

[117]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 21

[118]Northern Territory Government, Submission 60, p. 6

[119]Northern Territory Government, Submission 60, p. 6

[120]Northern Territory Government, Submission 60, p. 6

[121]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 10

[122]CSIRO, ‘Fishing for ghost net recycling solutions’, Media Release, 25 September 2023

[123]CSIRO, ‘Fishing for ghost net recycling solutions’, Media Release, 25 September 2023

[124]Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, National Plastics Plan 2021, p. 10

[125]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 15

[126]FRDC, Submission 43, p. 7

[127]No Balloon Release Australia, Submission 7, p. 4

[128]Ms Kate Lynch, Acting Deputy Secretary, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 11 August 2023, p. 33

[129]CSIRO, National Circular economy roadmap for plastics, glass, paper and tyres, Pathways for unlocking future growth opportunities for Australia, Summary, January 2021, p. 7

[130]CSIRO, Submission 8, p. 9

[131]CSIRO, National Circular economy roadmap for plastics, glass, paper and tyres, Pathways for unlocking future growth opportunities for Australia, Summary, January 2021, p. 8

[132]Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, National Plastics Plan 2021, p. 11

[133]WWF-Australia, Submission 15, pages 3 and 4

[134]WWF-Australia, Submission 15, p. 5

[135]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 16

[136]WWF-Australia, Submission 15, p. 5; AMCS, Submission 45, p. 16

[137]WWF-Australia, Submission 15, p. 5

[138]WWF-Australia, Submission 15, p. 5; AMCS, Submission 45, p. 16

[139]Flinders University, Submission 67, p.2

[140]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 21

[141]Australian Institute of Marine Science, Submission 5.1, p. 1

[142]Dr Nina Wootton, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 26 June 2023, p. 9

[143]Dr Nina Wootton, Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 26 June 2023, p. 9

[144]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 21

[145]Engineers Australia, Submission 11, p. 3; Plastic Free Foundation, Submission 21, p.2; Australian Beverages Council, Submission 40, p.10; Chemistry Australia, Submission 51, p.3; Australian Academy of Science, Submission 61, p.1; Flinders University, Submission 67, p. 2

[146]CSIRO, Submission 8, p. 9; WWF-Australia, Submission 15, p. 3; Plastic Free Foundation, Submission 21, p. 2; Australian Beverages Council, Submission 40, p. 9; Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 5; FRDC, Submission 43, p.8; AMCS, Submission 45, p. 12; Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association Australia, Submission 55, p. 4; Australian Food and Grocery Council, Australian Council of Recycling and National Retail Association, Submission 62, pages 4-9; Please Save Our Beaches, Submission 66, p. 3

[147]Ms April Seymore, Executive Officer, Port Phillip EcoCentre, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 15; P.S. Our Beaches, Submission 66, p. 2; Council of Capital City Lord Mayors, Submission 37, p. 4; Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 2

[148]Plastic Free Foundation, Submission 21, p. 2

[149]Council of Capital City Lord Mayors, Submission 37, p. 4; Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 5; Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc, Submission 10, p. 4; Flinders University, Submission 67, p. 3; Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 25

[150]Ms April Seymore, Executive Officer, Port Phillip EcoCentre, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 15

[151]Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc, Submission 10, p. 4; Flinders University, Submission 67, p. 3

[152]Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc, Submission 10, p. 4

[153]Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 2

[154]Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association Australia, Submission 55, p. 4

[155]Plastic Free Foundation, Submission 21, p. 1

[156]Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia, and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 6

[157]Engineers Australia, Submission 11, p. 3

[158]P.S. Our Beaches, Submission 66, p. 2; WWF-Australia, Submission 15, p. 7

[159]WWF-Australia, Submission 15, p. 7

[160]FRDC, Submission 43, p. 8

[161]Flinders University, Submission 67, p. 5

[162]FRDC, Submission 43, p. 7

[163]No Balloon Release Australia, Submission 7, p. 4

[164]Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 3

[165]DCCEEW, Submission 59, pages 11-12

[166]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 12

[167]WWF-Australia, Submission 15, p. 3

[168]Yarra Riverkeeper Association, Submission 4, p. 6; Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association Australia, Submission 55, p. 4; Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, pages 10, 13

[169]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 13

[170]Mr Brian Dalitz, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 8

[171]AMCS, Submission 45, pages 1, 9-10

[172]Mr Brian Dalitz, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 13

[173]WWF-Australia, Submission 15, p. 3

[174]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, pages 16-17

[175]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 2

[176]NSW Environment Protection Authority, Submission 29, p. 2

[177]Australian Marine Conservation Society, Submission 45, p. 26

[178]Yarra Riverkeeper Association, Submission 4, p. 6

[179]Illawarra Plastic Pollution Reduction Coalition, Submission 28, p. 3; WWF-Australia, Submission 15, p. 3; Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 2

[180]Australian Food and Grocery Council, Australian Council of Recycling, and National Retail Association, Submission 62, p. 8

[181]APCO, ‘Review of the 2025 national packaging targets report’, Media Release, 20 April 2023