3. A national approach to reducing plastic pollution
   1. This chapter considers the effectiveness of the Australian Government’s engagement with the states and territories, industry and non-government organisations in reducing plastic pollution, particularly in Australia’s oceans and waterways. The chapter also assesses the effectiveness of education initiatives to reduce plastic pollution.

The role of the Australian Government

3.2Evidence within the inquiry highlighted that there is no nationally aligned approach to implementing the policies designed to reduce plastic pollution in oceans and waterways. While there was agreement that the current strategies regarding waste reduction, recycling infrastructure, environmental education and the elimination of single-use plastics were a step in the right direction, there was also acknowledgment that a complex regulatory landscape impacted these policies, resulting in varying approaches across states, territories and regions.[1]

3.3As discussed in Chapter 2, there was clear evidence that the Australian Government needed to adopt a clear, comprehensive and nationally cohesive National Plastics Plan, in consultation with the states and territories and industry, to reduce plastic waste from the top of the production hierarchy.[2]

3.4The Department explained the role of the Australian Government in plastic management, noting that:

The Australian Government leads and coordinates plastic management policy, where it relates to international obligations, agreed national actions and standard setting. The day-to-day management and regulation of plastic waste management and recycling is primarily the responsibility of state and territory and local governments. State, territory and local government are in the best position to make critical decisions on recycling regulation and respond to market pressures with respect to recyclable materials such as plastic.[3]

3.5Submitters to the inquiry had varying views on current strategies but there was evidence that an increased role for the Australian Government would be welcomed. Clean Up Australia commended the number of initiatives from government and industry which have been launched or implemented, noting that this represented an observable escalation of this activity over the last decade.[4] It added that ‘joint ventures, grants and infrastructure investment have delivered a significant suite of solutions that are already delivering quantifiable results’.[5]

3.6Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, among others, called on the Australian Government to be ‘far more active and resolute on understanding its role, and the national policies that support and give more effect to state actions’ to ensure standardised approaches and consistency to tackle plastic pollution.[6] Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre added:

To date the Commonwealth has been too resistant to introducing measures such as mandatory product stewardship and packaging standards. This has undermined the effectiveness of state policies.[7]

3.7Plastic Oceans Australasia saw a role for the Australian Government to coordinate the ‘prioritisation and harmonisation of the single use plastic bans currently in force in states and territories’.[8]

3.8Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) believed there was an opportunity for the Australian Government to ‘better leverage the considerable expertise of environmental NGOs’.[9]

3.9Woolworths Group Limited stated that there is a ‘role for governments to foster domestic recycling capabilities with mechanisms such as research grants, start up support and planning approvals.’ It added that ‘the Government can also advocate for greater use of material made from recycled content and is encouraged to continue consulting with industry on this issue’.[10]

Single-use plastic bans

3.10The rollout of bans on problematic and single-use plastics in the states and territories was a key action of the National Plastics Plan 2021 (NPP) and the Committee received a significant amount of evidence relating to this action, as well as the role of governments in this process. Single-use plastic items are designed to be briefly used once and then thrown away to landfill.[11]

3.11In 2021, there was agreement among the Environment Ministers to prioritise the industry phase-out of eight problematic single-use plastics by 2025. These were:

• Lightweight shopping bags
• Fragmentable plastics
• Straws
• Utensils and stirrers
• Bowls and plates
• Expanded polystyrene (EPS) consumer food containers
• EPS goods packaging
• Microbeads in personal products.[12]
  12. Table 3.1 summarises the current Australian state and territory commitments to phase out single-use plastics nationwide by 2025.[13]

Key:  = Banned F = Forthcoming (ban yet to commence) P = Proposed (subject to consultation)

3.13There was general support for the bans on problematic single-use plastics. AMCS praised the rollout of the bans in states and territories, remarking that these actions have been:

…one of the most powerful instruments policy makers have been able to deploy to reduce plastic pollution, effectively preventing the production of the hardest to recycle and most commonly littered plastics.[14]

3.14AMCS also noted strong support for the bans on single-use plastics citing government consultations which revealed public support levels exceeding 90 per cent. ACMS referred to the 2022 National Waste Report which estimated that the state and territory bans could prevent 65,000 tonnes of single-use plastic waste in Australia over ten years.[15]

3.15Plastics Oceans Australasia emphasised the favourable results of the single-use plastics bans, claiming that bans on single-use plastics have ‘already encouraged innovation in both alternative materials and in processes to avoid the necessity for these plastics’.[16]

3.16Island Care Christmas Island provided anecdotal evidence of the impact of the West Australian single-use plastic ban. It reported a change in the local community habits and observed that businesses are replacing single-use plastics such as shopping bags with alternatives, like boxes and reusable bags, after existing stocks were depleted.[17] Island Care Christmas Island suggested that single-use plastic bans should be supported with education and compliance actions.[18]

Impacts of single-use plastic bans

3.17Evidence noted that there were some issues with the single-use plastic bans directly or what appeared to be unintended consequences because of the bans.[19] These issues related to how the bans were implemented across the different jurisdictions or the impact that they were having on industry.

3.18Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc claimed that the single-use plastic bans in Australia are ‘limited in scope, lack harmonisation across states and territories, and lag behind European and other international jurisdictions’.[20]

3.19Engineers Australia highlighted inconsistencies between jurisdictions, noting a lack of progress in Tasmania in implementing single-use plastics bans. Engineers Australia also recognised that the bans covered ‘approximately two-thirds of common use plastics’, the remaining one-third included extensively manufactured items, like produce bags for fruits and vegetables, plastic and coffee cups, lids and plastic take-away containers. It suggested that there was a need for increased focus on these remaining items to ensure a nationally effective single-use ban.[21]

3.20The Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC), Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR) and National Retail Association (NRA) stated, from a retailer’s perspective, the differences in single-use plastic regulations among states and territories was both ‘increasing cost and complexity for businesses with national reach’.[22]

3.21The AFGC, ACOR and NRA suggested that a nationally aligned approach to plastic recycling and pollution to ‘drive investment in a national supply chain and circular economy’ would result in the ‘greatest environmental outcomes’.[23]

3.22Chemistry Australia cautioned that these bans could have unintended consequences to the viability of local manufacturing capability, including the ability for investment in the circular economy and to produce recycled plastics.[24] It noted the disconnect between the Australian Government’s support for sovereign manufacturing and the state level single-use plastic bans:

Some of the raw materials for single use plastic constitute a large proportion of the indigenous sovereign polymer manufacturing portfolio. As a result, potential bans of such single use plastics can also have the potential for unintended consequences of undermining the ongoing viability of local manufacturing capability.[25]

3.23Several submissions endorsed the suggestion for improved collaboration among states and territories to develop a clear and cohesive, nationwide strategy for prohibiting single-use plastics.[26]

3.24Plastics Oceans Australasia saw a role for the Australian Government in prioritising and harmonising state and territory single-use plastic bans, contending that a single, nationally agreed upon list for businesses and consumers would help to reduce compliance costs.[27] Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association Australia (WMRR), the Australian Institute of Marine Science and Council of Capital City Lord Mayors (CCCLM) also supported calls for a coordinated national approach.[28]

3.25AMCS called for harmonisation of the state and territory bans on single-use plastics. It stated that this could include a roadmap for a nationwide ban on specific plastic items.[29]

3.26The Australian Retailers Association supported the necessity for a consistent national framework and recommended the Australian Government establish partnerships with industry and non-government organisations to ensure an effective reduction of plastic pollution.[30]

Design standards

3.27There was support for the development and implementation of more sustainable and nationally consistent design standards for plastic packaging and labelling, with some submitters calling for the Australian Government to take a more active role.

3.28As noted in Chapter 2, there are fundamental issues with the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011 (Used Packaging NEPM), which, amongst other things, establishes responsibilities for businesses regarding packaging waste management and promotes sustainable packaging practices. The AMCS pointed out that the current scheme had:

…inconsistency between national and state or territory arrangements, with brand owners able to use inconsistencies to evade their obligations, and states and territories not consistently collecting and reporting critical information relating to the performance of brand owners.[31]

3.29The AMCS supported a nationally consistent approach to used packaging and recommended the Australian Government introduce a ‘mandatory product stewardship scheme for plastic packaging, with mandatory targets’.[32]

3.30AMCS proposed that this scheme should encompass ‘ambitious national targets for reducing virgin plastics use, reducing overall plastic consumption, increasing plastics recovery rates, and increasing recycled content in plastic packaging’.[33] Additionally, it should include manufacturer responsibilities for product design, collection, processing and any associated costs.[34]

3.31It was also suggested that the Australian Government should encourage companies to re-design plastic and packaging, with a focus on considering the entire lifecycle of these materials, from production to disposal. The CCCLM highlighted the importance of partnering with product designers and the recycling and resource recovery industry to ensure that design standards of plastic packaging were fit for purpose with clear pathways for resource recovery and recycling at the end of a product’s life.[35]

3.32The CCCLM suggested that the Australian Government prioritise ‘investment in plastic packaging’, as this would ensure that materials were ‘retained at the highest value for the longest time’ and were consistently re-introduced into ‘high demand markets’, such as re-purposing food packaging for food packaging.[36]

3.33Sea Shepherd Australia suggested re-designing plastic packaging ‘from beginning to end of life’, removing materials or chemicals that could not be efficiently recycled and only allowing the production of recyclable polymers.[37]

3.34Pew Charitable Trusts stressed the significance of purposefully designing plastics with recycling in mind as an effective strategy to ‘increase [their] inherent value and improve the profitability of the recycling industry’.[38] It emphasised the need to build facilities that can recycle these plastics to ‘ensure a circular end-of-life system for plastics that cannot be reduced or substituted’.[39]

3.35The Australian Beverages Council Limited (ABCL) suggested that industry and government should jointly develop ‘nationally consistent design standards for different segments of food and beverage packaging’.[40] It viewed guidelines set by the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) as a valuable starting point for collaborating with industry stakeholders to develop design standards that would increase the ‘quantity and quality of Australian recyclate, providing the market necessary to sustain continued reprocessing and domestic reuse’.[41]

3.36The Yarra Riverkeeper Association emphasised the value of supporting industries in their transition to designing and producing alternatives for plastic packaging at scale. It recommended providing ‘seed funding for pilot projects of alternative plastic packaging, pollution management measures, such as transport and storage of polystyrene waste’.[42]

Extended Producer Responsibility and tax levies

3.37The Committee received evidence on the role of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and tax levies and how such schemes could assist in combatting plastic pollution.

3.38EPR is a type of product stewardship that places the main responsibility on the producer, importer and sometimes the seller of a product. This means that producers or importers who make, bring in or sell products are primarily accountable for reducing their environmental impacts, managing their disposal and ensuring their recyclability. It is a strategy that aims to include the environmental costs of products in their prices from start to finish.[43]

3.39The Surfrider Foundation South Coast emphasised the need for policies ensuring EPR ‘so that companies that use plastic packaging are responsible for the ‘take back’ of all plastic packaging’.[44]

3.40The National Waste and Recycling Industry Council (NWRIC) similarly proposed greater incentives for producers to ‘buy back’ plastics used in their packaging, fostering a market for locally processed recycled plastics. It recommended diverting funds ‘towards industry and recycling via taxes on ‘virgin plastic content’ in products’ as part of EPR.[45]

3.41Others recommended that the Australian Government implement a tax or levy that specifically target virgin plastic to discourage its consumption and promote the use of recycled materials. While the AMCS viewed EPR schemes as useful for encouraging packaging producers to take accountability for the environmental impact of their products, it argued that EPR schemes ‘are not sufficient to reduce the use of plastic packaging and virgin plastics on their own’.[46] It added that:

EPR schemes work best when combined with other policy levers, such taxing the use of virgin plastics, banning hazardous substances or problematic single-use plastics, container return schemes, and recycled content targets.[47]

3.42The NWRIC called for the ‘implementation of a levy being applied on virgin polymers’ as a means of re-claiming monies from generators.[48] These funds could then be redirected to support the recycling industry, addressing the issue of ‘used plastics that are currently going to landfill and impacting the receiving environment more broadly’.[49]

3.43Veolia suggested that the introduction of levies, especially ‘where recycled content is not used’ would drive ‘recycling and sustainable outcomes’.[50] Veolia recommended that the Australian Government adopt a ‘pay as you buy’ approach. This would incentivise consumers to buy recyclable packaging at reduced prices and ‘compel the entire packaging supply chain to pivot in response to consumer appetite and the environmental agenda’.[51]

3.44CCCLM suggested that the Australian Government should consider the introduction of regulatory or fiscal measures to reduce problematic plastic waste ‘where voluntary efforts implemented by industry prove to be unsuccessful’.[52]

3.45The Minderoo Foundation highlighted the Netherlands’ EPR scheme, where 80 per cent of packaging released into the market was recycled.[53] The Minderoo Foundation explained:

Minderoo sees an opportunity for the Australian Government to introduce an EPR scheme that has a focus on packaging, particularly plastics, to increase recycling rates which will aid in preventing plastic pollution. Minderoo also sees an opportunity to utilise EPR schemes further and to consider an industry led contribution on polymer producers.[54]

3.46Dairy Australia, the Vinyl Council and RM Consulting described the product stewardship scheme Plasback which operates in New Zealand and targets a range of agricultural plastics.[55]

3.47The Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre noted the European Union Single Use Plastic Directive which established goals for 2030 with milestone targets.[56] The directive required all member States:

• Ban Identified single use plastics such as plastic straws, cutlery, and EPS containers by 2021
• Introduce EPR schemes for cups, food containers and identified other plastic items by 2024, with those schemes covering the costs of collection, transport, treatment, and litter
• A significant reduction in the consumption of single use cups and containers by 2026
• The tethering of beverage caps and lids on to their containers
• Proper labelling of products
• More promotion and availability and development of reusable food ware alternatives and practices.[57]
  48. No More Butts provided evidence of there being a growing momentum for product stewardship and EPR schemes for cigarette butts and tobacco products. It referenced a report released by the World Health Organisation in 2022 which called for policy makers to consider cigarette filters as ‘single use plastics and consider banning cigarette filters to protect public health and the environment’.[58]

International taxes and levies on plastic packaging

3.49Some countries already apply taxes or levies on plastic packaging, including the United Kingdom, Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands.[59]

3.50AMCS explained that Germany taxes plastic as a material through ‘weight-based fees for plastics being part of a product’.[60] Plastic Oceans Australasia said that by the 1990s, Germany ‘had already reduced its plastic waste production by something like 14 per cent and met all of its recycling targets’ and attributed its success to ‘clearer rules and rigorous enforcement’.[61]

3.51In January 2021, the European Union introduced a packaging levy on non-recycled plastic packaging waste to encourage member states to ‘reduce packaging waste and stimulate Europe's transition towards a circular economy by implementing the European Plastics Strategy’.[62]

3.52AMCS said that a uniform rate of EUR0.80 per kilogram is applied to ‘the weight of plastic packaging waste that is not recycled, with a mechanism to avoid excessive contributions from less wealthy Member States’.[63] There is an expectation that Member States will cover these costs themselves or pass them through to industry.[64] In response, Member States such as Spain, Germany and Italy have taken steps to implement a plastic packaging levy.[65]

3.53In 2022, a Plastic Packaging Tax in the United Kingdom came into effect which applies to packaging with less than 30 per cent recycled plastic on both manufactured plastic and plastic that is imported.[66] It applies at a rate of GBP200 per tonne of plastic packaging. AMCS said that an assessment of the impacts of the tax by the United Kingdom found that ‘the cost to consumers will be small as plastic packaging usually makes up a very small amount of the total cost of goods’.[67]

3.54The Illawarra Plastic Pollution Reduction Coalition recommended regulatory options to incentivise recycled content in plastic packaging, such as the United Kingdom’s plastics tax.[68]

3.55WWF-Australia added that the major recyclers in the United Kingdom said that the plastic packaging tax is ‘having a positive impact in terms of the availability of recycled content and the use of recycled content’.[69]

3.56AMCS saw a role for the Australian Government to ‘implement a market based mechanism that targets plastic production’.[70] It said that:

Modelled on the EU or UK examples, such a mechanism could be a levy on virgin plastics (to stimulate demand for recycled material), and/or a levy on the use of plastic packaging to achieve an overall reduction in plastic waste.[71]

3.57Plastic Oceans Australasia warned, however, that any fees, penalties and mandates applied to plastic ‘need to be set at a level where it actually changes the economics’.[72] It said that the United Kingdom’s virgin plastic fee ‘was not set at a level to be able to compete with the low cost of virgin plastic’ and was not ‘even enough to cover the cost to local governments of recovering and processing the waste’.[73]

3.58Australian Food and Grocery Council added that in the United Kingdom, the amount of recycled material to meet the recycled content requirements is not available because ‘the infrastructure isn't in place to deliver the supply’. It added that, as a result, businesses ‘are now paying significant taxes’.[74]

3.59Plastic Oceans Australasia urged the Committee to:

…examine work by the OECD, the UK parliament, the European Commission and EU member states which emphasises the importance of clear rules, rigorous enforcement and setting fees and penalties at a level that genuinely incentivises waste reduction.[75]

Recycling plastics

3.60Evidence to the Committee found that Australian households and consumers face various barriers to recycling correctly, including inconsistent packaging standards, the collapse of the REDcycle scheme, and differing approaches across states and territories about what can be recycled, including under Container Deposit Schemes. Submitters to the inquiry called for improvements in the national coordination of plastic recycling and collection programs to improve proper disposal methods and therefore recycling rates.

Plastic packaging and labelling

3.61The Committee heard that standardised definitions and clear labelling practices were essential to ensure that the information on plastic packaging communicated a clear message. Evidence showed that the lack of uniformity in plastic packaging labelling has led to confusion among consumers about recycling practices and proper disposal methods.

3.62The AFGC, ACOR and NRA advocated for ‘clear, simple [and] consistent labelling’ to alleviate consumer confusion, limit cross-contamination and boost environmental outcomes.[76]

3.63Flinders University recommended clearer labelling on packaging ‘to ensure that waste management becomes more efficient, and that unintended disposal and mis-disposal are minimised’.[77]

3.64Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre recommended that labelling be modified to be ‘nationally recognised and consistent taking account of the realities and scale of actual recycling or composting practices’.[78]

3.65The NWRIC also endorsed a ‘nationally consistent approach to recycling labels’ which ‘support consumer education and effective waste segregation’.[79]

3.66Yarra Riverkeeper Association highlighted that unclear and inconsistent product labelling misleads consumers into believing that certain items are compostable when they are not.[80] Yarra Riverkeeper Association provided an example of biodegradable bin bags, which are ‘oxo-degradable’. It noted they ‘are not suited to composting, and they break down into fragments of small plastic which pose threats to animals who may mistake them as pieces of food’.[81]

Greenwashing

3.67The evidence also highlighted the issue of greenwashing, which refers to misleading environmental claims made by companies, often on packaging, to appear more eco-friendly than they actually are. Tangaroa Blue Foundation warned that misleading and greenwashing claims from companies and brands could ‘damage consumer trust in purchasing and supporting broader recycling programs’.[82]

3.68Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre said that ‘greenwashing proliferates when there is a lack of clear definitions of what terms mean’.[83] They suggested that standardising and clearly defining the term ‘recyclable’, in a way that could be easily enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) or Environment Protection Authority (EPA), would assist in addressing the issue.[84]

3.69ACMS submitted that many years of greenwashing by some companies has ‘led to high levels of confusion about bioplastics, biodegradable plastics and compostable plastics with many consumers believing that any plant-based plastic will degrade quickly if littered in the environment or in landfill’.[85]

3.70Flinders University suggested that policy be developed around greenwashing, noting that it is crucial ‘to promote transparency and hold accountable those who engage in deceptive practices, so the community is not deceived’.[86]

3.71Sea Shepherd Australia also emphasised the need for ‘absolute transparency’ throughout the plastics supply chain to assist industry, investors, governments and consumers in making more informed decisions regarding the funding, production, consumption and end of life disposal of plastics.[87]

REDcycle – soft plastic recycling

3.72REDcycle was a recycling business paid by ‘supermarkets and around 270 brands’ to collect soft plastics deposited by the general community in recycling bins at their stores. The soft plastics were intended to be converted into recycled products.[88]

3.73In November 2022, the REDcycle program was suspended because it had accumulated soft plastics for an unknown period ‘due to insufficient processing capacity’.[89] CropLife said that the suspension of the REDcycle scheme demonstrated a ‘lack of recycling infrastructure’ and technology within the soft plastic sector.[90]

3.74While Coles considered the REDcycle program valuable for offering ‘an accessible and convenient option for customers’, it referred to the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation’s estimation that ‘less than five percent of consumer soft plastic’ was gathered by the in-store REDcycle collections program.[91]

3.75Woolworths stated that together with Coles, they ‘volunteered to manage and safely store the REDcycle stockpiles while recycling options are being assessed’.[92] It reported that the ‘11,000 tonnes of stockpiled REDcycle soft plastics discovered across 44 sites’ were successfully consolidated to ‘12 sites with proximity to recycling facilities’.[93]

The Soft Plastics Taskforce

3.76In December 2022, the Soft Plastics Taskforce was established to facilitate collaboration among the three major Australian supermarket retailers – Coles, Woolworths and Aldi – to explore options for a future in-store soft plastics collection program. The Taskforce was authorised by the ACCC to work together until July 2024.[94]

3.77The role of the Taskforce is to develop a ‘new in-store soft plastics collection scheme to roll out as local recycling capacity expands’.[95] The initial development work confirmed that the upcoming program would operate as a non-profit, feature independent governance and function under a new brand, aiming to ‘re-engage consumers in soft plastic recycling’.[96]

3.78Coles emphasised the importance of ensuring that there were diverse solutions in the new program to mitigate ‘central dependency risk through reliance on one or only a few processors’, as seen in the example of REDcycle.[97]

3.79Coles recognised that any new program relying on supermarket collection was considered ‘an interim solution only’.[98] Coles contended that an in-store program should evolve and align with other collection pathways, including kerbside recycling, drop-off locations through local government and providers of Container Deposit Schemes. It stated:

The Taskforce recognises the need for a long-term national soft plastic recycling strategy beyond its interim program, which could significantly increase the proportion of household soft plastic collected. It supports industry and government collaboration to deliver kerbside household recycling in the long-term – similar to that available currently for rigid plastic, tin cans, glass bottles and paper.[99]

3.80While Woolworths saw a role for the wide-scale collection of soft plastics to complement in-store collection, it was concerned with the sustainability of collection programs.[100] Woolworths emphasised that achieving long-term success in soft plastics recycling required a larger market for recycled plastic feedstock, increased domestic processing infrastructure and a convenient collection mechanism for consumers.[101]

3.81Woolworths did not foresee restarting full-scale soft plastic collection until the ‘fundamental issue of infrastructure availability is resolved’ to avoid overwhelming the system again.[102]

Container Deposit Schemes

3.82The Committee received evidence on Container Deposit Schemes (CDS). The aim of CDS is to promote recycling, reduce litter and enhance environmental sustainability and involves consumers paying a small deposit on beverage containers when purchased, which can be redeemed upon returning the containers for recycling.[103]

3.83South Australia was the first state to implement CDS in 1977. Since then, states and territories have adopted similar programs with different features.[104] The schemes typically involve partnerships between governments, beverage producers and recycling entities. They provide collection points, such as drop-off locations, where consumers can return containers and receive a deposit refund.[105]

3.84Commonly accepted items in CDS include beverage containers made of materials such as plastic, glass and aluminium. The accepted items and deposit amount, however, may vary between jurisdictions due to differences in legislation and program implementation.[106]

3.85AMCS stated that since its launch across Australia, CDS has ‘enjoyed widespread support among Australians’, with ‘high support’ for the expansion of these schemes to include more containers.[107] It reported that:

…93% of Australians support the expansion of container deposit schemes to include more containers such as wine and spirit bottles, with 73% strongly supporting the idea. Only 2% opposed expansion of the scheme.[108]

3.86Evidence suggested that different approaches to CDS across states and territories may cause confusion for individuals and industries.[109] The AFGC, ACOR and NRA noted that the ‘lack of alignment’ of CDS created ‘confusion for community and industry alike, resulting in low investment confidence and slowing implementation’.[110]

3.87The ABCL believed there was an ‘opportunity to integrate glass, jars and bottles from the food sector into the scheme’, to eliminate the ‘issue of glass contamination in mixed kerbside recycling without the need for a fourth bin for glass’.[111] It supported consultations to expand the scope of CDS to include ‘large juices, cordials, wine and spirits’ bottles.[112] The ABCL added that high-value plastic packaging such as ‘cooking oil, hand wash, shampoo and detergent containers’, that ended up in landfill, could instead be collected, re-used and kept out of the natural environment.[113]

National coordination

3.88There was clear evidence that the Australian government should take a more active role in improving national coordination for plastic recycling and collection programs. ABCL said that ‘differing priorities among federal, state and territory governments’ required businesses to navigate disparate requirements that were ‘often at odds with each other’.[114] Referring to CDS as an example, ABCL highlighted that:

Unevenly enforced bans and regulations lead to unintended disruptions in business operations as companies scramble to make sure they are acting legally in each jurisdiction.[115]

3.89As a result, ABCL called for ‘greater coordination mechanisms between state and federal priorities, programs and legislation’.[116]

3.90Coles said that the optimal way to accelerate nationwide access to soft plastic recycling is to ‘elevate the response to an industry and government collective action approach’ which addresses the issue ‘from design right through to end of life solutions’, ensuring effective consumer education and engagement.[117] It also supported ‘continued investment in recycling facilities’ to accelerate ‘existing plans to expand domestic capacity’.[118]

3.91Woolworths said that coordinating investments across jurisdictions is crucial to the success of collection schemes, since the Australian market is ‘relatively small’, and recycling infrastructure requires ‘a minimum level of feedstock inputs to be viable’.[119] Woolworths noted:

…collection schemes will have national scale and infrastructure investment decisions should be strategically coordinated across borders with a view to leveraging available economies of scale.[120]

Recycling infrastructure

3.92Evidence showed that Australia’s waste management and recycling infrastructure faces challenges with different approaches to recycling practices nationally. The evidence highlighted the need for a cohesive and collaborative recycling system which could be achieved through standardised practices, increased government funding, greater industry engagement and diversified recycling methods.[121]

3.93There was support for establishing national recycling standards and infrastructure, with strong industry involvement. The AFGC, ACOR and NRA, for example, supported a nationally consistent approach to address plastic recycling and pollution, stating that it would ‘drive investment in a national supply chain and circular economy’.[122]

3.94NWRIC suggested collaborating with industry to ‘build a realistic and achievable roadmap’ for reaching ‘recycling and recovery targets’.[123] It said that this involves determining the necessary infrastructure and capacity to meet targets for each type of plastic.[124]

3.95WMRR saw a role for the Australian Government to implement policies that ensured ‘standardised approaches and consistency’.[125] WMRR also emphasised the importance of industry collaboration, noting:

Engagement needs to occur also with industry and generators to ensure that there is funding in the system for collection infrastructure at end of life, remanufacturing investment and demand for recyclate (mandated content targets) – all of which must be enforceable.[126]

3.96The evidence indicated that ensuring access to recycling infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, along with enhanced collaboration with industry stakeholders, is important for increasing the amount of material entering the recycling system.

3.97AMCS said that a shift towards the ‘national harmonisation of infrastructure’ was urgently required to reduce plastic waste.[127] AMCS noted that Australia’s recycling infrastructure and waste management system was ‘capable of achieving high recovery rates’.[128] AMCS called for the Australian Government to:

…coordinate harmonisation of services, with further investment needed to prioritise access to recycling and industrial composting services for regional and remote communities.[129]

3.98Coles noted that collective action between industry and government was important in restoring public confidence in soft plastics recycling.[130] It stated:

…this can only be fully achieved if Australia has the infrastructure and the systems design approach, aligned with government and industry in place to adequately facilitate the recycling of all material that may be collected.[131]

3.99Evidence suggested that Australia’s recycling infrastructure could be enhanced if there was investment to increase domestic recycling capabilities. The Minderoo Foundation urged the Australian Government to increase investment into Australia’s waste management infrastructure to bolster the development and reliability of ‘domestic capacity to collect, sort and recycle material, including adequate facilities to recycle soft plastics’.[132]

3.100Woolworths also saw a role for the Australian Government to ‘foster domestic recycling capabilities with mechanisms such as research grants, start-up support and planning approvals’.[133]

3.101Some submitters called for the Australian Government to align national recycling infrastructure investments more closely with circular economy principles. Boomerang Alliance and the Total Environment Centre advocated for funding and coordination towards:

…national investment in infrastructure, market development and best management practices that eliminate pollution and unnecessary plastics, reduce use, encourage reusable alternatives and promote recovery and recycling of discarded plastics.[134]

3.102Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre viewed investing in plastic recycling infrastructure as a positive opportunity for Australia to transition ‘towards a model that can reduce the production of virgin plastic in the future’.[135]

Kerbside recycling

3.103Kerbside recycling began in the late 1980s in many local councils with rates of recycling rapidly increasing between 1992 and 2006 largely due to the improvement of kerbside collection methods such as the provision of easy use wheelie bins.[136]

3.104The Committee heard that there are issues with kerbside recycling, including that recycling bins are being contaminated by items that cannot be recycled and individuals are incorrectly disposing of items.[137] This hinders the recycling process because contaminated materials are difficult to sort and recycle effectively. Additionally, non-recyclable items in recycling bins can damage equipment and reduce the efficiency of recycling facilities.[138]

3.105Clean Up Australia reflected that when it comes to recycling, there is good will, but it does not always result in ideal outcomes:

There’s a sentiment that we want to participate in recycling and we believe in it, but we certainly get it wrong quite often. We would also discourage the use of mixed materials in our plastics. For example, a drink bottle contains three or four different types of plastics. The bottle, its label, the lid and the lid ring can also be quite different types of plastic.[139]

3.106The ABCL noted that an ongoing issue in kerbside recycling was placing items in the wrong bin through either lack of knowledge or ‘wish-cycling’.[140] Wish-cycling involves non-recycled items being placed in the recycling bin, with the intent that they will be recycled even if the facility does not accept them.[141]

3.107Clean Up Australia noted that this was an issue with soft plastics and labelling:

As a result, consumers are confused, often disposing of plastics such as soft plastics, like confectionery wrappers and plastic bags in their kerbside recycling [because the labelling tells them it is recyclable], resulting in management issues and equipment failure at their local waste processing facility.[142]

Harmonisation in kerbside recycling and Container Deposit Schemes

3.108The Committee heard that work with states and territories to implement a harmonised approach to kerbside recycling has begun, with submitters to the inquiry calling for nationally consistent standards and an easily understandable approach.[143]

3.109The ABCL supported the call to ‘harmonise kerbside recycling standards and aspects of CDS’.[144] It said that a ‘harmonised federal directive to collect “caps on” in CDS and kerbside recycling’ could ‘reduce litter rates, recover more materials and feed domestic reprocessing infrastructure’.[145] It would also promote ‘nationalised recycling labelling through the Australasian Recycling Logo (ARL)’ and ‘nationwide behavioural campaigns to educate consumers about CDS and beverage container recycling.[146]

3.110The Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre endorsed a co-ordinated and ongoing process to improve CDS. They stated:

This should include setting a recovery target of 90%; the inclusion of wine/spirit bottles, other containers and products and reusables; review of refund amount to ensure high return rates; and harmonised inclusion of bottle tops.[147]

3.111The Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) emphasised ‘a very strong need’ for ‘harmonised national standards’ in the kerbside collection of materials and consistency across initiatives, such as CDS.[148]

3.112The AFGC, ACOR and NRA stated that the harmonisation of kerbside recycling necessitated the following aspects:

…an accurate understanding of current MRF infrastructure across Australia; a consideration of the variety of influences relating to community behaviour and recycling, including consumption habits and demographics; and strong markets for recycled material.[149]

3.113AMCS said that there was an opportunity for the Australian Government to lead the harmonisation of CDS and review the refund amount.[150] In doing so, this could potentially ‘increase return rates by reducing confusion for consumers and simplifying processes for beverage companies’.[151]

3.114Some inquiry stakeholders called on more support for the recycling operations of CDS through increased funding in infrastructure. The Northern Territory government noted that the Australian Government could ‘fund plastics recycling infrastructure’ and ‘assist to set up container deposit schemes’.[152]

3.115The WMRR pointed out that while soft plastic recycling and other CDS demonstrated the community’s commitment to recycling, the ‘lack of infrastructure and re-manufacturer demand or recycled material are derailing these efforts’.[153]

Waste-to-energy technologies

3.116The Committee received some evidence suggesting that waste to energy technologies could be a solution for tackling plastic pollution. There was a divergence of views, with support from the waste industry and concern expressed by other groups.

3.117For example, the AFGC, ACOR and NRA recommended the development of a national waste-to-energy policy framework suggesting this will assist with industry confidence:

A [waste-to-energy] policy framework that restricts [waste-to-energy] to non-recyclable material only will provide industry with clarity, certainty and therefore confidence to invest in mechanical or advanced recycling and resource recovery infrastructure knowing that minimum feedstock volumes underpinning capital investments are secure.[154]

3.118On the other hand, the Oceanic Research Institute noted that when trying to find solutions for plastic pollution ‘we must not transfer solid hazardous waste into other forms of hazardous waste life, especially in the gaseous form’.[155] It added that ‘industry will try to circumvent and sidestep clean air regulations as they burn plastic’.[156]

3.119The Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre raised that:

A further significant problem is that the [Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation] regards waste to energy as ‘’recycling’’ (as part of the key Target 2 – ‘70% of plastic packaging is recycled or composted’). This erroneous position is found in the 2025 National Packaging Targets Review which outlines the expected new facility developments that will contribute to the target. Almost half are waste to energy plants producing fuel … which according to the waste hierarchy sit below recycling and certainly are not compatible with the circular economy.

Another serious issue is that waste to energy plants require long term contracts, effectively locking out future recycling of the contracted material, that can exceed several hundred thousand tonnes a year.[157]

3.120Minderoo Foundation suggested that waste-to-energy should be used as a last resort, such as for ‘materials that can't be recycled because it is preferable to the landfill’.[158] It highlighted that material should only be sent to waste-to-energy ‘after all reasonable efforts to put it higher up the waste hierarchy have been exhausted’.[159]

Education programs

3.121Evidence revealed that governments, non-government organisations and schools have all actively engaged in campaigns and programs to raise awareness about the impacts of plastic pollution, promote responsible waste management and encourage sustainable practices. These programs have included community workshops, online sessions, and school programs.

3.122CCCLM described how some governments are actively supporting, funding and implementing education programs addressing ocean plastic pollution:

• The City of Melbourne is investing in education-based programs through the Port Philip Bay Fund, which included community organisations, mainstream media and formal education. These projects focus on raising awareness of ‘plastic literacy’ and promoting responsible plastic use and disposal.[160]
• The City of Sydney held 31 online education sessions about recycling and alternatives to single-use plastics. These sessions covered 20 recycling masterclasses and 10 ‘plastic decoded’ webinars explaining the different types of plastics and the importance of making informed choices.[161]
• The City of Perth actively provided waste education through in-person and online workshops to the community, including schools.[162]
• The City of Darwin used community education to assist in the transition away from single-use plastics. Initiatives included:

• waste audits to understand community behaviours, informing community waste programs.
• collaboration with Plastic Free Northern Territory to support businesses and customers in adopting alternatives to single-use plastics.
• upgrades to the Shoal Bay Waste Education Centre with curriculum-linked waste education programs.[163]

• The City of Adelaide provides forward-looking support and funding programs for small to medium businesses. These initiatives included fostering ongoing education on waste and resource management practices.[164]
  123. Non-governmental organisations have also contributed to raising consumer awareness and education about the problem of plastic waste. Plastic Oceans Australasia said that it has implemented two consumer-focused programs to shift away from single-use plastics. The EPIC program (Engagement in Plastic-free Innovation for Change) works with organisations to assess their waste profile and identify ways to minimise or eliminate plastic waste. Participants in the EPIC program have included several local councils, businesses and community groups.[165]
  124. Plastic Oceans Australasia’s second initiative is the schools program, where it delivers materials aligned with the Australian curriculum to participating schools, educating students on the impacts of plastic waste and the available alternatives. It had a co-curricular program for school students where they formed ‘Plastic Oceans teams within their schools to reduce waste within their community’.[166]
  125. Industries have actively partnered with state governments to facilitate extensive business education programs. From 2022 to 2023, the National Retailers Association worked with six state and territory governments and the New Zealand government to educate and support ‘over 100,000 retailers, suppliers, charities and community organisations’ affected by the restrictions on single-use plastics.[167]
  126. AMCS said that the Australian Government has invested in educational programs promoting recycling practices and eco-friendly goods. This included an $8.2 million investment in the ‘ReMade in Australia’ scheme to ‘promote Australia’s remanufacturing industries and increase consumer confidence in the value of recycling and ReMade products’.[168] $2 million was also allocated to the ‘Recycle Mate’ mobile application through the Australian Government Environment Restoration Fund.[169]

Unclear messaging and limited public awareness

3.127While the evidence showcased public support and participation in educational initiatives, it also revealed Australia’s education programs on plastic pollution face several challenges due to unclear information about responsible plastic use and disposal, causing confusion about recycling practices.

3.128Highlighting this issue, Ms Elise Tuuri stated:

If you talk to anyone, the majority of the people that I talk to get confused about what can and can’t go into the recycling bin. Even though there have been lots of initiative and stickers, people still approach me being like ‘Am I allowed to recycle this? How do I recycle this properly?[170]

3.129Boomerang Alliance and the Total Environment Centre said that there is a ‘lack of engagement and activation of consumers regarding household recycling and public place litter behaviours’, highlighting a disconnect between existing educational efforts and public understanding.[171]

3.130AMCS saw a role for the Australian Government to allocate funding for educational campaigns that focused on building public awareness about ‘the appropriate management of plant-based and biodegradable plastic products’.[172] This should be supported by ‘strong national standards’ for biodegradable plastic and ‘investment in the infrastructure’ to handle these products.[173]

3.131CCCLM believed that ‘standard and consistent messaging nationally across sectors would assist in reducing consumer confusion’.[174]

3.132Evidence to the Committee also highlighted that there is limited public awareness of the extent of the plastic pollution problem and the role Australians could play in addressing it. The University of Adelaide cited its recent study where the fishing community in South Australia was interviewed about their perceptions of microplastics in the marine environment. The results revealed a low understanding of the associated risks, highlighting that there were ‘gaps in knowledge and misconceived opinions of microplastics’, particularly within specific demographics.[175]

3.133The University of Adelaide said that promoting outreach and involving communities that might be less aware of the risks posed by plastics could ‘inspire and drive positive change to assist in mitigation strategies broadly’.[176]

3.134Additionally, Chemistry Australia emphasised the need for community awareness regarding proper disposal of used goods and the environmental impact of litter. It said that communities and consumers need access to ‘good information that is reliable and actionable’.[177]

National and targeted educational initiatives

3.135National education programs on ocean plastics were considered by stakeholders to the inquiry as vital initiatives for informing the Australian population about the impact of plastic pollution and to change industry and consumer behaviour.[178]

3.136The Illawarra Plastic Pollution Reduction Coalition said that a national education strategy should target packaging designers to increase their understanding about ‘sustainable design standards and the availability of alternative, recyclable materials’.[179] Additionally, it should increase education for consumers, both in businesses and households to raise awareness about ‘opportunities to refuse, reuse and recycle plastic packaging’.[180]

3.137The AFGC, ACOR and NRA stated that education is needed ‘to prevent litter entering the marine environment’ that is ‘supported by an increase in both public place collection infrastructure adjacent to waterways and collection services to assist in preventing litter from entering storm ways that lead to waterways’.[181]

3.138Some submitters recommended that the Australian Government implement targeted education programs to deliver relevant and accurate information about plastic pollution to diverse audiences.

3.139Flinders University highlighted the importance of targeted education programs that dispel misinformation; counter fear mongering by providing accurate scientific information; and address greenwashing practices to encourage transparency and accountability within businesses.[182] Flinders University said that these educational programs should:

…identify specific target groups, where they can bring about significant behavioural change through effectively communicating the importance of reducing plastic consumption and promoting sustainable alternatives.[183]

3.140Chemistry Australia also stressed the importance of changing consumer behaviour towards littering through ‘focused education campaigns and suitable enforcement regimes’.[184]

3.141The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation emphasised the necessity of ‘targeted and effective education, engagement and capability building’ efforts.[185] These would be designed to help stakeholders ‘understand the need for change in their context, feel they can undertake change required, and see that others are changing practices as well’.[186]

Collaboration between government, industry and academia

3.142Submitters to the inquiry supported the development of education programs through a collaborative approach, drawing on the strengths of government, academic institutions and industry.

3.143The Australian Retailers Association highlighted the need for an education program ‘to assist retailers with both the transition from single-use plastic, and the sourcing challenges they will encounter through that transition’.[187]

3.144The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, noted the importance of education for communities, consumers and industries in supporting the ‘reduction in use of plastics, increased re-use and recycling’.[188] This was considered particularly important in areas ‘where inconsistencies persist between local government areas in terms of what can be recycled and how’, emphasising the need for a unified and informed approach.[189]

3.145The Illawarra Plastic Pollution Reduction Coalition called for the Australian Government to ‘support an evidence-based practical strategy to educate and develop behaviour change interventions’ to decrease public usage of soft plastics, ‘as well as promote recycled products’.[190]

3.146Ms Jo Larkin considered that education for industry on relevant legislation is important and suggested developing an education package requiring industry ‘to participate in a Webinar that outlines the issue of microplastic pollution and the legislation requirements to prevent it’.[191]

Committee Comment

3.147Plastic pollution in Australia’s oceans and waterways will persist if the current strategies on waste reduction, recycling infrastructure and environmental education programs remain unchanged. Despite many Australians wanting to do the right thing, the fragmented regulatory landscape and widespread inconsistencies across states and territories are causing public confusion. This is contributing to contamination in recycling processes.

3.148Currently, recycling infrastructure and resource allocation is distributed across voluntary industry policies, local governments, and state and territory governments. The absence of decisive action by the Australian Government has left state and territory governments with no choice but to independently address issues on items such as banning single use plastics.

3.149The Committee agrees with evidence that Australia needs nationally harmonised recycling infrastructure and practices. The Committee sees an opportunity for this to be integrated into an updated National Plastics Plan (NPP) with the Australian Government taking a leadership role to enhance coordination and foster a more consistent policy approach.

3.150The Committee considers that consistent recycling infrastructure and services nationwide, including harmonisation of the Container Deposit Scheme, will ensure that Australians have equitable access to recycling, regardless of which jurisdiction they live in.

3.151The Committee recommends that, as a priority part of an updated National Plastics Plan and in collaboration with state and territory governments, the Australian Government:

• take a leadership role in coordinating and tracking actions in relation to the reduction of use of plastics
• nationally harmonise single-use plastic bans, and
• establish national waste collection standards, particularly in regional and remote areas without kerbside recycling.

3.152The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to harmonise and expand the Container Deposit Scheme. The expansion should consider additional products such as milk, juice, wine and spirits bottles.

3.153The Committee is concerned about low recycling participation among Australians due to unclear and inconsistent product labelling, which leads consumers to believe that certain items are recyclable or compostable when they are not. In addition, many soft plastics still carry the ‘REDcycle’ or ‘Return To Store’ labels despite the suspension of this recycling facility in November 2022.

3.154The Committee agrees with evidence that there is a need for standardised definitions and a nationally consistent approach to recycling labels. This will ensure accurate information on plastic packaging and thereby simplify the recycling process, reduce confusion, and help consumers recycle the right containers and dispose of non-recyclable ones, reducing unintended disposal and mis-disposal.

3.155The Committee is pleased that the Soft Plastics Taskforce was established and anticipates its outcomes in July 2024 as announced. The Committee also welcomes the trial that has recently commenced to re-introduce soft plastics recycling at 12supermarkets in Melbourne, and looks forward to its expansion to a larger scale once the necessary recycling capacity is in place.

3.156The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to standardise and simplify plastic packaging and recyclability labelling to make it easier for consumers to recycle effectively. These changes should also consider ‘greenwashing’ claims made on packaging and in advertising. These labelling changes should be in place by December 2025.

3.157Recycling and the reduction of waste is only part of the plastic pollution problem. It is now too easy and inexpensive for manufacturers to use virgin polymers to make new plastic products. As discussed in Chapter 2, there are challenges associated with the high cost of recycled materials and the lack of incentives for their incorporation into new plastic products. The Committee believes that producers and manufacturers should be taking responsibility for minimising their environmental footprint by managing the disposal and prioritising the recyclability of their products.

3.158The Committee considers that the Australian Government should support plastic manufacturers to use recycled or re-used materials to decrease the use of virgin polymers in new plastics. In this regard, an updated NPP should include measures to track plastic and polymer production in Australia, ensuring transparency on plastic composition, including additives. An updated NPP should also include policies that track the composition of imported plastics.

3.159Extended Producer Responsibility schemes can be effective if there are clear rules and enforcement. The Committee considers that, as part of an updated NPP, the Australian Government should investigate setting a levy on the use of virgin polymers, modelled after the United Kingdom and European Union’s levies, to incentivise plastic waste reduction.

3.160The Committee believes that, similar to the United Kingdom, the levy should require new plastics to contain a minimum of 30 per cent recycled content, to be increased progressively. The levy should be set to remain competitive with the low cost of virgin plastic, while ensuring that it covers the costs associated with waste recovery and processing.

3.161While investigating the application of the levy, the Committee encourages the Australian Government to monitor the approaches by the United Kingdom, European Commission and European Union member states.

3.162The Committee recommends that an updated National Plastics Plan includes effective policies that track and limit plastic and polymer production within Australia with an aim to reduce the variety of polymers in use and enable visibility of the material composition of plastics that are imported.

3.163The Committee recommends that as a priority of an updated National Plastics Plan, the Australian Government, with the collaboration of industry:

• establish stronger Extended Producer Responsibility schemes to ensure product stewardship, and
• investigate the application of a levy on the use of virgin polymers to ensure that plastics are made from at least 30 per cent recycled content, with the minimum percentage to be increased progressively.
  164. During the inquiry, and during the Committee’s visit to Western Australia, the Committee heard evidence about using waste-to-energy technologies as a method of reducing the amount of plastic ending up in landfill, particularly in rural and remote areas with limited recycling infrastructure. While waste-to-energy technologies may offer potential benefits, the Committee also heard that there are a number of economic and environmental considerations that require careful evaluation.
  165. The Committee did not receive sufficient evidence on waste-to-energy to enable it to make direct recommendations, but believes that the premise needs more investigation.
  166. In this regard, the Committee considers that the Australian Government should refer an inquiry to a parliamentary committee to investigate the feasibility of a waste-to-energy policy framework. The framework should extend beyond plastic to manage all non-recyclable materials, such as animal waste, to reduce waste to landfill.

3.167The Committee recommends that the Australian Government refer an inquiry into waste-to-energy to be considered by a parliamentary committee by December 2025.

3.168The Committee acknowledges that there are existing campaigns and programs aimed at responsible waste management and raising awareness about plastic pollution. However, there is a disconnect between educational efforts and public understanding, due to unclear information about responsible plastic use and disposal.

3.169Efforts to simplify recycling and achieve national harmonisation of infrastructure and services nationwide must be supported by a comprehensive public awareness and education campaign. The Committee considers that such a campaign should promote proper recycling practices, including guidance for Australians to interpret the newly standardised plastic packaging and recyclability labelling as recommended in Recommendation 10 of this report.

3.170The Committee is also concerned about the low level of understanding and misconceptions among some Australians about the impacts of plastic pollution on our oceans and waterways, particularly the risks associated with microplastics. The Committee considers that the national campaign should include education on the environmental impacts of plastic pollution, with an aim to foster behavioural change and counter misinformation.

3.171The Committee recommends that the Australian Government develop and fund a comprehensive and nationwide public awareness and education campaign. The campaign should include education on:

• proper recycling practices, including on reading the standardised plastic packaging and recyclability labelling as recommended in Recommendation 10, and
• the impacts of plastic pollution, particularly the risks associated with microplastics, on Australia’s oceans and waterways.

Footnotes

[1]See for example: WWF-Australia, Submission 15, p. 5; Australian Retailers Association, Submission 39, p. 2; Genfac Plastics, Submission 16, pages 2-3; Plastic Free Foundation, Submission 21, p. 2; NSW Environment Protection Authority, Submission 29, p. 3

[2]NSW EPA, Submission 29, p. 3

[3]Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, Submission 59, p. 4

[4]Clean Up Australia, Submission 18, p. 5

[5]Clean Up Australia, Submission 18, p. 5

[6]Boomerang Australia and the Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 10; NSW EPA, Submission 29, p. 4; Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association Australia, Submission 55, p. 5

[7]Boomerang Australia and the Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 10

[8]Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 5

[9]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 26

[10]Woolworths Group Limited, Submission 70, p. 3

[11]Government of South Australia, Single-use Plastic FAQs, www.greenindustries.sa.gov.au/single-use-plastic-faqs, viewed 23 January 2024

[12]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), Submission 59, p. 30

[13]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 23; Engineers Australia, Submission 11, p. 3; The table reflects the current state and territory bans on single-use plastics gathered from the following websites: The Victorian Government, Reducing plastic pollution starts with us, www.vic.gov.au/single-use-plastics, viewed 30 November, 2023; The Queensland Government, About the single-use plastic items ban, www.qld.gov.au/environment/circular-economy-waste-reduction/reduction/plastic-pollution/single-use-plastic-products-ban/about, viewed 30 November 2023; Government of South Australia, New items banned from today as SA moves to eliminate single use plastics, www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/new-items-banned-from-today-as-sa-moves-to-eliminate-single-use-plastics, viewed 30 November, 2023; Government of Western Australia, Western Australia’s Plan for Plastics Stage 2, www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-water-and-environmental-regulation/western-australias-plan-plastics-stage-2,viewed 30 November 2023; ACT Government, Takeaway containers and plastic bags next on the list for single use plastic ban, www.cmtedd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/chris-steel-mla-media-releases/2022/takeaway-containers-and-plastic-bags-next-on-the-list-for-single-use-plastic-ban, viewed 30 November 2023

[14]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 21

[15]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 22

[16]Plastics Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 3

[17]Island Care Christmas Island, Submission 46, p. 6

[18]Island Care Christmas Island, Submission 46, pages 6 and 7

[19]Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc, Submission 10, p. 3; Engineers Australia, Submission 11, p. 2; Chemistry Australia, Submission 51, p. 4; Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC), Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR) and National Retail Association (NRA), Submission 62, p. 6; Boomerang Australia and the Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 24

[20]Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc, Submission 10, p. 3

[21]Engineers Australia, Submission 11, p. 2

[22]AFGC, ACOR and NRA, Submission 62, p. 6

[23]AFGC, ACOR and NRA, Submission 62, p. 6

[24]Chemistry Australia, Submission 51, p. 4

[25]Chemistry Australia, Submission 51, p.4

[26]Illawarra Plastic Pollution Reduction, Submission 28, p. 2; Council of Capital City Lord Mayors, Submission 37, p. 5; Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 3; Boomerang Australia and the Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 24

[27]Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 5

[28]CCCLM, Submission 37, p. 5; Waste Management and Resource Recovery, Submission 55, p. 3; Dr Darren Koppel, Research Scientist and Environmental Risk Assessment, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Committee Hansard, Perth, 27 June 2023, p. 17

[29]AMCS, Submission 45, pages 21-22

[30]Australian Retailers Association, Submission 39, p. 3

[31]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 11

[32]AMCS, Submission 45, pages 11 and 16

[33]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 16

[34]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 16

[35]CCCLM, Submission 37, p. 6

[36]CCCLM, Submission 37, p. 6

[37]Sea Shepherd Australia, Submission 65, p. 7

[38]Pew Charitable Trusts, Submission 50, p. 7

[39]Pew Charitable Trusts, Submission 50, p. 7

[40]Australian Beverages Council Limited (ABCL), Submission 40, p. 10

[41]ABCL, Submission 40, p. 10

[42]Yarra Riverkeeper Association, Submission 4, pages 8-9

[43]DCCEEW, Product Stewardship, www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/publications/national-waste-reports/2013/product-stewardship, viewed 1 February 2024

[44]Surfrider Foundation South Coast, Submission 53, p. 2

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

[46]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 15

[47]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 15

[48]National Waste Recycling Industry Council, Submission 64, p. 5; Mr Brian Dalitz, Head of Commodities, Cleanaway Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 9

[49]National Waste Recycling Industry Council, Submission 64, p. 5; Mr Brian Dalitz, Head of Commodities, Cleanaway Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 9

[50]Veolia, Submission 54, pages 2 and 3

[51]Veolia, Submission 54, p. 3

[52]CCCLM, Submission 37, p. 3

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

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

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

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

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

[58]No More Butts, Submission 47, p. 11

[59]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 15

[60]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 15

[61]Ms Janaline Oh, Board Director, Plastic Oceans Australasia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 29 June 2023, pages 1-2

[62]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 16

[63]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 16

[64]Australian Marine Conservation Society, Submission 45, p. 16

[65]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 16

[66]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 15

[67]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 15

[68]Illawarra Plastic Pollution Reduction Coalition, Submission 28, p. 3

[69]Ms Kate Noble, Policy Manager, No Plastic in Nature Initiative, WWF Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 11 August 2023, p. 16

[70]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 17

[71]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 17

[72]Ms Janaline Oh, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 4

[73]Ms Janaline Oh, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 4

[74]Ms Tanya Barden, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Food and Grocery Council, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 11 August 2023, p. 3

[75]Ms Janaline Oh, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 29 June 2023, p. 1

[76]Australian Food and Grocery Council, Australian Council of Recycling and National Retail Association, Submission 62, p. 6

[77]Flinders University, Submission 67, p. 4

[78]Boomerang Australia and the Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 24

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

[80]Yarra Riverkeeper Association, Submission 4, p. 7

[81]Yarra Riverkeeper Association, Submission 4, p. 7

[82]Tangaroa Blue Foundation, Submission 26, p. 5

[83]Mr Jeff Angel, Boomerang Alliance and Executive Director, Total Environment Centre, Committee Hansard, Rosehill, 30 June 2023, p. 11

[84]Mr Jeff Angel, Committee Hansard, Rosehill, 30 June 2023, p. 11

[85]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 28

[86]Flinders University, Submission 67, p. 4

[87]Sea Shepherd Australia, Submission 65, p. 7

[88]Coles Group, Submission 71, p. 4

[89]Coles Group, Submission 71, p. 4

[90]CropLife, Submission 35, p. 6

[91]Coles Group, Submission 71, p. 4

[92]Woolworths Group Limited, Submission 70, p.1

[93]Woolworths Group Limited, Submission 70, p.1

[94]Coles Group, Submission 71, p.5; Woolworths Group Limited, Submission 70, p.1

[95]Coles Group, Submission 71, p.5

[96]Coles Group, Submission 71, p.5

[97]Coles Group, Submission 71, p.5

[98]Coles Group, Submission 71, p.6

[99]Coles Group, Submission 71, p.6

[100]Woolworths Group Limited, Submission 70, pages 2 and 5

[101]Woolworths Group Limited, Submission 70, p.2

[102]Woolworths Group Limited, Submission 70, p.2

[103]Australian Beverages, Container Deposit Schemes, www.australianbeverages.org/initiatives-advocacy-information/container-deposit-schemes, viewed 29 January 2024

[104]Australian Beverages, Container Deposit Schemes, www.australianbeverages.org/initiatives-advocacy-information/container-deposit-schemes, viewed 29 January 2024

[105]Australian Beverages, Container Deposit Schemes, www.australianbeverages.org/initiatives-advocacy-information/container-deposit-schemes, viewed 29 January 2024

[106]Australian Beverages, Container Deposit Schemes, www.australianbeverages.org/initiatives-advocacy-information/container-deposit-schemes, viewed 29 January 2024

[107]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 24

[108]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 24

[109]Ms Tanya Barden, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Food and Grocery Council, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 11 August 2023, pages 3-4

[110]Australian Food and Grocery Council, Australian Council of Recycling and National Retail Association, Submission 62, p. 4

[111]ABCL, Submission 40, p. 8

[112]ABCL, Submission 40, p.8

[113]ABCL, Submission 40, p.8

[114]ABCL, Submission 40, p.12

[115]ABCL, Submission 40, p.12

[116]ABCL, Submission 40, p.12

[117]Coles Group, Submission 71, p. 6

[118]Coles Group, Submission 71, p. 6

[119]Woolworths Group Limited, Submission 70, p. 3

[120]Woolworths Group Limited, Submission 70, p. 3

[121]See, for example: Dairy Australia, Vinyl Council of Australia and RM Consulting Group, Submission 41, p. 4 and 6; Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Submission 43, pages 4-7; Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Submission 44, p. 5; AMCS, Submission 45, p. 20; Woolworths Group Limited, Submission 70, p. 3

[122]AFGC, ACOR and NRA, Submission 62, p. 6

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

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

[125]Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association Australia, Submission 55, p. 5

[126]Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association Australia, Submission 55, p. 5

[127]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 1

[128]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 29

[129]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 20

[130]Coles Group, Submission 71, p. 6

[131]Coles Group, Submission 71, p. 6

[132]Minderoo Foundation, Submission 48, p. 4

[133]Woolworths Group Limited, Submission 70, p. 3

[134]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 3

[135]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 22

[136]Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Social Trends, 2007, Household Waste, www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/latestproducts/E1E64A4DB813BC8BCA25732C00207FF7?opendocument, viewed 11 April 2024

[137]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 13.

[138]DCCEEW, Tips for recycling at home, www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/consumers#australasian-recycling-label-arl, viewed 31 January 2024; Planet Ark, Australasian Recycling Label, https://recyclingnearyou.com.au/arl, viewed 31 January 2024.

[139]Ms Jenny Geddes, Chief Executive Officer, Clean Up Australia, Committee Hansard, Rosehill,30 June 2023, p.2

[140]Ms Cathy Cook, Head of Corporate Affairs, Australian Beverages Council Ltd, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 11 August 2023, p. 8

[141]Ms Jenny Geddes, Chief Executive Officer, Clean Up Australia; Committee Hansard, Rosehill, 30 June 2023, p. 3

[142]Clean Up Australia, Submission 18, p. 3

[143]DCCEEW, Submission 59, p. 13; Genfac Plastics, Submission 16, p.4; ABCL, Submission 40, pages 8-10

[144]ABCL, Submission 40, p. 10

[145]ABCL, Submission 40, p. 8

[146]ABCL, Submission 40, p. 8

[147]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 23

[148]Ms Tanya Barden, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Food and Grocery Council, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 11 August 2023, p. 3

[149]AFGC, ACOR and NRA, Submission 62, p. 4

[150]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 25

[151]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 24

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

[153]WMRR, Submission 55, p. 5

[154]AFGC, ACOR and NRA, Submission 62, p. 8

[155]Oceanic Research Institute, Submission 52, p. 2

[156]Oceanic Research Institute, Submission 52, p. 2

[157]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 20

[158]Ms Sarah McEvoy, Principal, Policy and Advocacy, Plastics, Australia and Asia, Minderoo Foundation, Committee Hansard, Perth, 27 June 2023, p. 11

[159]Ms Sarah McEvoy, Committee Hansard, Perth, 27 June 2023, p. 11

[160]CCCLM, Submission 37, p. 13

[161]CCCLM, Submission 37, p. 21

[162]CCCLM, Submission 37, p. 16

[163]CCCLM, Submission 37, p. 11

[164]CCCLM, Submission 37, p. 9

[165]Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 5

[166]Plastic Oceans Australasia, Submission 42, p. 5

[167]AFGC, ACOR and NRA, Submission 62, p. 5

[168]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 28

[169]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 28

[170]Ms Elise Tuuri, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, Adelaide,26 June 2023, p. 16

[171]Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre, Submission 63, p. 15

[172]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 29

[173]AMCS, Submission 45, p. 29

[174]CCCLM, Submission 37, p. 7

[175]School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Submission 23, p. 2

[176]School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Submission 23, p. 2

[177]Chemistry Australia, Submission 51, p. 5

[178]See, for example: Shire of Christmas Island, Submission 38, p. 4; Clean Ocean Foundation, Submission 33, p. 11; Illawarra Plastic Pollution Reduction Coalition, Submission 28, p. 2; AFGC, ACOR and NRA, Submission 62, p. 6

[179]Illawarra Plastic Pollution Reduction Coalition, Submission 28, p. 2

[180]Illawarra Plastic Pollution Reduction Coalition, Submission 28, p. 2

[181]AFGC, ACOR and NRA, Submission 62, p. 7

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

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

[184]Chemistry Australia, Submission 51, p. 5

[185]Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Submission 43, p. 6

[186]Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Submission 43, p. 6

[187]Australian Retailers Association, Submission 39, p. 3

[188]Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Submission 43, p. 7

[189]Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Submission 43, p. 7

[190]Illawarra Plastic Pollution Reduction Coalition, Submission 28, p. 4

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