2.1
This chapter examines the key issues raised in evidence received by the committee. The committee acknowledges that as the RWR bills constitute a significant reform package, and due to the relatively short inquiry timeframe, the focus of its report is on the key issues raised during the examination of the bills. Several less prominent issues have not been examined in detail.
2.2
The chapter first sets out the strong and broad support for the scope and intention of the package of RWR bills. This includes the positive response from many stakeholders to the bill's provisions for a waste export ban for certain materials, as well as widespread support for the incorporation of the Product Stewardship Act 2011 (Product Stewardship Act) into the new legislative framework.
2.3
The chapter then outlines evidence that raised concerns about key aspects of the package of RWR bills, including:
the need for ongoing consultation in implementation, as well as other suggested support for the transformation of the recycling and waste reduction sector;
the importance and value of the adoption of sustainable procurement models;
the amendments to the bill's product stewardship arrangements; and
a number of other issues, including labelling, statutory review, terms in the legislation that could be clarified, and the costs and charges.
2.4
Finally, this chapter sets out the committee's views and recommendations.
Support for the bill
2.5
Evidence received by the committee overwhelmingly supported the bill's broad intentions to institute a ban on the export of certain waste materials, as well as for the incorporation of the Product Stewardship Act into new Commonwealth legislation. Support was received across a diverse range of sectors, including local and state governments, representatives of the recycling industry, manufacturers and retailers, other NGOs representing particular industries, and environmental organisations.
2.6
For example, Mr Pete Shmigel, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR), outlined the reasons why his stakeholders supported the intent and content of the bill:
First of all, the legislation represents essentially a high-water mark in terms of legislative developments at the national level with regard to waste and recycling…Secondly, any cursory analysis of the triple-bottom-line benefits of the legislation…clearly shows that there are significant opportunities created, whether it's jobs or diversion of materials from landfill or domestic sustainability, and they are higher than the potential costs or risks of the legislation. Thirdly, and importantly, an ongoing mantra from all industry, whether it's the recycling industry or others, is stability and certainty, certainly in the context of the waste bans or the export bans. The legislation provides that, and, therefore, a clearer path to business decisions and investment plans on the part of our industry.
2.7
Other representatives of the waste management and recycling industry also spoke positively of the proposed framework set out in the bill. The National Waste and Recycling Industry Council (NWRIC) commented that the proposed reforms represent:
...a significant element of the reform process that can contribute to achieving a circular economy. Most importantly this step by the Australian Government acknowledges that waste and recycling services are an essential service. In addition, they constitute a vital resource industry that makes a substantial economic contribution to the nation. It is an industry that has great potential to strengthen Australia's resource security, generate clean energy, create jobs and protect the environment.
2.8
The Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia (WMRR) noted that the waste and resource recovery industry is worth around $15.5 billion a year to our economy, and the RWR package would assist 'building a sustainable domestic remanufacturing industry, strengthening our economy and creating Australian jobs, while ensuring human and environmental health are protected'.
2.9
At the hearing, Ms Rose Read of the NWRIC, told the committee more about the economic potential of the sector:
In terms of added value, we're looking at $4½ billion to $5 billion added value. In terms of employment…there's a direct employment of at least 36,000 and an indirect employment of another 40,000. The overall turnover of the industry is $15 billion to $20 billion.
2.10
Stakeholders from the wider manufacturing sector also spoke positively of the bills. For example, the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC), which represents the food and beverage manufacturing industry, expressed strong support for the leadership shown by the government's reform agenda set out in the bill. Ms Tanya Barden, the AFGC's Chief Executive Officer, said her organisation:
…welcomes the two parts of the bill, the provisions relating to the implementation of the waste export ban and the provisions setting out a product stewardship framework. We believe that the government's bill and supporting packages present a clear direction to enable a whole of supply chain transformation and that it provides the resource recovery industry the confidence to invest in and facilitates a move towards a circular economy. Our industry is up to the task of strengthening product stewardship and is working hard to ensure that the national packaging targets are achieved.
2.11
Stakeholders representing broader industry interests also supported the bill. For example, the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group), which represents a range of industries, including manufacturing, construction, ICT, defence, transport and logistics, expressed support for the approach taken by the government in developing the bills:
[The Ai Group's] approach to the [RWR] bill reflects our overall concern about the serious waste and resource recovery challenges confronting Australia. Industry supports well-considered and financially sustainable action to build a more circular economy. We support the passage of the bill on the basis that it provides the infrastructure for the government to address these challenges, but much will depend on implementation details.
2.12
Elements of the retail sector also spoke positively about the bill's proposed reforms. For example, the Woolworths Group (Woolworths) submitted that the bill is a significant initiative that would provide greater clarity for industry, and demonstrate strong national Commonwealth leadership:
Traditionally the purview of state and territory governments, a centralised effort that harmonises strategies, objectives and targets nationwide is a welcome initiative as it is essential to delivering a successful and viable recycling system for Australians.
2.13
Environmental organisations also expressed strong support for the bills. For example, Ms Katinka Day, the No Plastic in Nature Policy Manager for
WWF-Australia, told the committee:
WWF welcomes the federal government's recycling and waste reduction bills. Reducing and recovering our waste are urgent priorities for Australia, and these bills have the potential to transform waste management in Australia and accelerate our transition to a circular economy. We support the federal government's waste export ban. We also support the incorporation of the Product Stewardship Act into this bill and believe that chapter 3 of the legislation provides a solid foundation for robust product stewardship in Australia.
2.14
A Humane Society International representative noted that the bills would provide a 'foundation to address the issue of waste in this country'. The joint submission made by the Boomerang Alliance, Total Environment Centre and the Nature Conservation Council (Boomerang Alliance) also expressed strong support for the package of bills, which they considered:
…have the potential to bring Australia's treatment of waste into a new era of recycling and build towards the circular economy. We particularly welcome clause 4 that embeds the precautionary approach in relation to protecting human and environmental health.
2.15
A number of witnesses and submitters also noted that the bills are part of a broader suite of initiatives and reforms that the government is undertaking to improve Australia's waste management systems and boost its domestic recycling sector, including:
the Recycling Modernisation Fund (RMF);
work to progress the National Waste Policy Action Plan;
the National Product Stewardship Investment Fund;
Cooperative Research Centres Projects (CRC-P) grants; and
improving government procurement practices to incorporate sustainable and recycled materials.
2.16
The benefits of this broader range of activities was summed up by Mr Shmigel of ACOR as follows:
I think the future is extremely bright. If you look at just the last two or three years, there have been probably over $750 million of direct investment into recycling infrastructure by industry alone. And money talks. People are investing because they think the future is looking good. Having said that, one of the reasons the future's looking good is we have the greatest amount of policy activity that we have ever seen—ever seen—in this country on waste and recycling. That's a credit to the Commonwealth government and the state governments. Finally, we're getting that vision and that leadership to get things done.
Commonwealth consultation
2.17
Evidence received by the committee showed that the government has undertaken extensive consultation in the development of the bills, as well as other complementary Commonwealth initiatives supporting reform in waste management and recycling.
2.18
For example, Ms Barden of the AFGC told the committee:
The other thing that's really important to note is the very collaborative and engaging approach the government has taken to the waste plan development as well as to this legislation and the broader package of measures. It's the first time that we've seen so much engagement and collaboration from the government around these issues, with all of the players at the table, and that's really vital because it really will be a whole-supply-chain approach to solving these things.
2.19
The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (the department) set out the consultation process that had shaped the development of the RWR package of bills:
Consultation on the Review of the Product Stewardship Act 2011 began in 2018 with public meetings in all capital cities. A public consultation round was opened, from which 271 submissions were received. Further targeted consultation was held with stakeholders from the single co-regulatory scheme under the Product Stewardship Act 2011 and voluntary industry-led schemes. The Review Report was presented in Parliament on 8 July 2020. The Government has also tabled its response to the Review, supporting all 26 recommendations.
Consultation with industry, local governments, non-government organisations (NGOs) and individuals on the waste export ban began in November 2019 and included a consultation paper with 103 submissions received, and a series of industry roundtables around the country. A COAG Decision Regulation Impact Statement was also released, with 62 submissions received.
The Department also undertook targeted consultation on the Exposure Drafts of the Bills in July 2020, including hosting a webinar with around 100 interested industry and government stakeholders.
2.20
The department also signalled ways in which its consultation would be ongoing in the implementation of the bills, as discussed below.
Issues raised
2.21
As outlined above, evidence received by the committee was overwhelmingly supportive of the bill's provisions and intent. However, some stakeholders flagged concerns with the bill, which this section will discuss in turn. These included:
the implementation of the waste export ban and growth of the recycling industry;
the Commonwealth adopting sustainable procurement models to provide leadership and boost the recyclables sector;
amendments to Australia's product stewardship arrangements, including on the Minister's priority list, accreditation of programs, banning single-use plastics, and mandatory targets; and
a range of other concerns.
Waste export ban
2.22
Some stakeholders expressed a hope that the Commonwealth would continue to be consultative with industry, local governments, NGOs and the public in implementing the proposed waste export ban, and continue to support industry transition to the new frameworks.
2.23
The Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) stated that there would be a range of challenges in the regulation of the waste export ban, including:
…in the timing: achieving the clean streams of value-added recycled materials required to comply with the export ban within the timeframes set out in the Bills, without resorting to stockpiling or landfilling of more difficult waste streams, will require work to be brought forward that could otherwise have been phased over the period to 2025. This will include work to bring online new packaging materials and formats, improve collection and sortation by establishing more specialised collection systems or improving sortation at material recovery facilities, and driving demand for recycled materials through the development of end-markets.
2.24
The Ai Group supported the waste export ban provisions of the bill, but its representative noted that 'much will depend on implementation details'. This included that the Commonwealth should ensure its new guidance on the framework is simple, its compliance obligations are easy for business to engage with and administer, costs are reasonable, and that penalties are applied consistently and appropriately.
2.25
Ms Rachael Wilkinson, a Policy Officer for the Ai Group, added that:
Finally, subordinate detail is critical to a successful, nuanced prohibition of specified exports. Meaningful consultation will be required for all material streams to reduce the risk of unintended consequences. And this work should complement further development of domestic recycling capability and sustainable markets for recycled and recovered materials as well as the firming up of efficient and adequate waste for energy and landfill options for waste products that cannot be given a meaningful second life onshore or offshore at this time.
2.26
Some evidence raised concerns about potential perverse outcomes that may result from the ban without a matched focus on the broader supply chain. For instance, WMRR submitted:
…too little emphasis, thought, and consideration have been, and continues to be placed on driving market demand for post-consumer recyclate and recycled products. Requiring producer responsibility, implementing funding models that result in polluter-pays, setting enforceable targets with penalties, and rolling out levers and incentives that disincentivise virgin-use are all tools and polices that have been introduced by other OECD nations over recent years; however, these continue to be lacking in Australia. If this lack of emphasis and intervention on the remainder of the supply chain continues, perverse outcomes will result from the ban, for instance, an increase in volumes sent to landfilled or stockpiled, or worse, illegally dumped. To reiterate again, the waste and resource recovery industry is end-of-pipe–we are the receivers of materials, not the generators of them.
2.27
The NWRIC also pointed to some key aspects of the bill that would need Commonwealth attention in its implementation, including developing markets, and requiring the use of recycled content for some manufactured and imported products. Moreover, it noted that:
Greater coordination of waste and recycling infrastructure planning across all levels of government and investment of the $1.5 billion state landfill levies collected annually, is also an outstanding area of work needing further development. Cleaning up what is collected by harmonising collection bin contents, urgently establishing a regulated battery recycling program and removing hazardous substances like PFAS from products, are obvious imperatives at this time. Focused action is also required to harmonise waste and recycling data, definitions, movement tracking, landfill levies and licensing.
2.28
Some concerns were raised about the potential costs of the waste export ban, which are not specified in the bill's provisions. This included concerns that:
fees and charges for export licenses would be borne initially by exporters, and so government should ensure that costs are reasonable, equitable and only sought on a cost-recovery basis; and
associated costs of the legislation, which are not contained in the bills themselves, should only be determined in consultation with industry.
2.29
The committee also received evidence that argued penalties outlined in the bill were excessive, particularly in relation to imprisonment.
2.30
The department stated that the government would continue to consult with and support stakeholders in implementing the waste export ban, including working collaboratively with states and territories, and investing in funds assisting transition. Ms Kristen Tilley, First Assistant Secretary of the department's Environment Protection Division, stated that:
I think it is important, as you've signalled, to recognise that this legislation is one piece of a much broader package of Commonwealth government—and, indeed state and territory government—measures that are intended to support and smooth the implementation of the export ban. I know a number of other witnesses today have pointed to certainly wanting to avoid potential perverse impacts that could arise when the individual bans for the four waste materials come into force over the next three to four years. So it was always recognised in the development of the ban by all state and territory and Commonwealth governments through COAG that there were additional complementary measures that would be needed to sit outside the ban.
2.31
In particular, Ms Tilley touched on the significance of the $190 million RMF, which has been designed as a collaborative initiative between the government and jurisdictions and is intended to:
…support avoiding those potentially perverse impacts of simply bringing down a ban that would reduce the number of options for what to do with the waste that we currently export…[This investment by the Commonwealth] recognises that Australia's domestic capacity to sort, reprocess and remanufacture waste that we currently export overseas into new commodities or manufacturing-ready inputs will be an important part of the ban.
2.32
On costs and penalties, the Explanatory Memorandum states that any costs associated with the bills would be imposed 'on a cost-recovery basis'. The department's submission stated that all charges would be in accordance with the Australian Government Charging Framework. Regarding penalties, the Explanatory Memorandum states that it is considered appropriate to include both civil and criminal penalties 'in order to provide flexibility for the Commonwealth', and that higher penalties, including imprisonment for some conduct, reflects the seriousness of some contraventions and so 'considered appropriate as a deterrent'.
Sustainable government procurement
2.33
Some evidence advocated for the Commonwealth and other Australian governments to embed sustainable procurement models into government expenditure. This, it was suggested, would help drive transformation in the circular economy, establish or expand markets for recyclate, and provide leadership for stakeholders.
2.34
For example, the LGASA submitted that:
There is opportunity for all levels of government to implement circular procurement practices as part of the COVID-19 economic recovery efforts to assist in developing onshore markets for Australian recyclables [which would be in accordance with the National Waste Policy Action Plan agreed by Australian governments].
In response to COVID-19 many governments have announced funding packages and programs designed to stimulate economies, fast track infrastructure projects and create local jobs. Where suitable, these projects (and projects/infrastructure being developed through the RMF) should seek to take advantage of recycled-content materials and product options. Utilising recycled content in these projects will assist in the development of onshore markets for Australia's recyclables.
2.35
This theme was drawn out in the public hearing. Ms Read of NWRIC told the committee that:
While the federal government is revising its sustainability procurement guidelines, it is not using that procurement leverage as strongly as it could. [NWRIC's submission suggests that] with any voluntary arrangement, all those products that are covered under those arrangements should be listed and referred to in the sustainability procurement guidelines so that there is preference and so, with consumption or procurement, products that are doing the right thing are given priority over others that don't.
2.36
Mr Shmigel of ACOR provided a compelling example of how sustainable government procurement practices could drive positive outcomes:
To give you a stat, if we were to pick two major road projects in every state and we were to use 1.5 per cent plastic content in that project as opposed to using virgin materials we would take up another 100,000 tonnes of soft plastic every year in this country. What does 100,000 tonnes represent? It represents nearly a doubling of the amount of soft plastic that is recycled domestically.
2.37
Ms Tilley stated that the government has signalled reform of its approach to sustainable procurement:
For the Commonwealth's part, the Prime Minister announced earlier this year at the National Plastics Summit that the government was updating…its procurement rules to ensure that every procurement made by a Commonwealth agency considers the use of recycled content in those purchasing decisions within the context of value for money, so there's work underway to bring that to life at the moment.
2.38
Additionally, Ms Tilley suggested there was scope for the Commonwealth and other governments to incorporate more re-used or recycled content in projects:
One of the key steps to help unlock that is to develop national standards that all governments—and, indeed, industry and the private sector—can use to have confidence that, when they are making those investment decisions, they can ensure there's more recycled content used in those projects. So there are commitments and work underway led through our colleagues in the department of infrastructure to fast track and develop standards for major infrastructure projects, unlocking a lot more opportunity for the procurement and spending and market development for the domestic use of the recovered waste materials that we'll no longer be sending offshore under the export ban.
Product stewardship
2.39
Evidence received by the committee broadly supported the incorporation of the current product stewardship arrangements into a new recycling and waste reduction legislative framework. However, some stakeholders raised concerns, including on:
the need for ongoing consultation with industry regarding new materials being added to the Minister's priority list;
compliance and voluntary product stewardship arrangements;
accreditation and voluntary schemes for particular sectors; and
adding single-use plastics to the list of prohibited materials.
Consultation on the Minister's priority list
2.40
Some evidence called for the Commonwealth to ensure that industry and other stakeholders were consulted in any proposed amendments to the Minister's priority list. This list is:
…a mechanism by which the Minister can communicate to industry which products they are considering regulating under the co-regulatory or mandatory product stewardship provisions in this Bill. The published list will also detail recommended actions the relevant industries can take to reduce the possibility of future government regulation of such products.
2.41
Ms Wilkinson of the Ai Group set out the benefits of consulting with industry:
…it would be valuable to consult impacted industries before products appear on the minister's priority list each year, and the expected time frame supplied should be realistic. Schemes are complex to set up, are comprised of many moving parts, and government needs to take that into account.
2.42
Several witnesses from the recycling and environmental sectors supported the establishment of an expert advisory group to provide advice on what kind of products should be added to the Minister's priority list.
2.43
On this matter, the department stated that the Minister would consult with relevant stakeholders in developing the list:
This bill doesn't establish a statutory body or an advisory group to play that role. What it does is clearly set out the sorts of people or organisations that the minister may consult in preparing a minister's priority list each year.
Compliance and voluntary product stewardship arrangements
2.44
Some evidence noted that voluntary product stewardship schemes had not achieved targets, and so advised that mandatory Commonwealth regulations should be introduced. For example, Boomerang Alliance stated:
In view of the repeated past failures of voluntary programs, we strongly support the mandatory approach. Our waste and recycling issues require urgent attention and Australia cannot afford another decade of voluntary targets, promises and missed deadlines.
2.45
WWF-Australia submitted that the 2025 Packaging Targets administered by APCO have failed to deliver results, and so should be brought within Commonwealth product stewardship arrangements, and made mandatory. Ms Day of WWF-Australia drew out the rationale at the hearing:
In regard to product stewardship Australia has largely relied upon voluntary programs. These have consistently failed to reach their targets. Given that the bill has an overarching clause, clause 4, that embeds a precautionary approach in relation to protecting human and environmental health, we think that the bill should have a default to mandatory actions for product stewardship programs. Without the best practice that this bill might encourage through mandatory actions, one can see continued debate about the success or otherwise of voluntary programs and moves by various states to introduce further product stewardship measures which are not in the interests of industry.
2.46
WMRR submitted that the bill could include provisions to make the product stewardship arrangements mandatory, should voluntary targets and standards not be achieved:
At present there is no clear pathway to move a scheme from voluntary to mandatory, or co- regulatory to mandatory, in the event that the scheme is not working as planned, or further assistance in seeking compliance is required. Provisions with clear timeframes must be incorporated that enables direction to be given to move to mandatory schemes in event that there is insufficient action and/or the scheme is failing to meet current objectives.
2.47
Some industry groups gave the committee evidence on the value of the existing voluntary arrangements for industry, including to promote flexibility and collaboration, avoid regulatory or financial burden on industry, and reduce costs for consumers.
2.48
At the hearing, Ms Wilkinson of the Ai Group suggested that 'recommending a mandatory or coregulatory solution should be a last resort'.
2.49
In the Australian Government Response to the Review of the Product Stewardship Amendment 2011 (Response to the PSA Review), the government indicated that:
The government will tackle the problem of free-riders by reforming the Minister's Product List process. This will include deadlines to encourage the development of new schemes in priority areas and making it clear to industry that, without an industry-led proposal coming forward within a set timeframe, the government's default response will be to impose a regulatory scheme.
2.50
The committee notes that in introducing the bills, the Minister stated:
This bill provides the incentive for industries to act and to demonstrate leadership but it also sends a clear signal that the time to show that leadership is now.
Those industries that do not step up and do not take part can assume that the government will step in for them, and enforce its own regulatory scheme.
Accreditation of voluntary schemes
2.51
The committee received evidence about the bill's provisions for the accreditation of voluntary product stewardship arrangements, which are intended to assist consumers make better choices in purchasing or disposing of products, and to provide them with information about whether products are meeting government accreditation arrangements.
2.52
Ms Barden of the AFGC spoke of the value of improving arrangements for voluntary accreditation. She also sounded a cautionary note for government 'naming and shaming' of entities that may not be participating in accredited schemes:
Reducing the costs and improving the benefits for scheme accreditation more generally is welcome. Streamlined and cost effective accreditation processes are likely to stimulate innovation, but businesses will need assurance that, should they invest in an accredited scheme, it will not be made redundant or undermined by any new mandatory or coregulatory schemes. Naming and shaming can be a powerful deterrent to contravention and free riding but it's important that any business named and shamed by government is confirmed to have committed an offence or breach and has exhausted any appeal opportunities that might be available in that process. For accusations of free riding, it is imperative to confirm that the impacted party has had an opportunity to state their case and is not simply struggling with what could be quite genuine barriers to participation.
2.53
Ms Read commented that the minister was only able to 'name and shame' organisations that are accredited, and there was room for the Commonwealth to reform these arrangements:
There are other voluntary schemes out there [apart from MobileMuster] that aren't accredited under the scheme. Some of those have gone through an ACCC approval process, and I think the government should take positive steps to automatically accredit those so that we can see them being reported. That also gives ministers the ability to name and shame those companies that haven't joined those voluntary arrangements. That would make a significant improvement, particularly in the tyres and battery areas.
2.54
In its Response to the PSA Review, the government indicated that it would find ways to:
encourage the development of and access to accredited schemes;
provide financial and advisory support for new schemes;
increase community support for, awareness of, and engagement in product stewardship schemes; and
streamline application, cost-recovery mechanisms and reporting arrangements.
2.55
The committee also took evidence on whether the Australian Packaging Covenant could be an accredited scheme under the bill's provisions. Ms Barden suggested it would be beneficial in a number of ways, as:
…the scheme does provide additional strengthening of the co-regulation by being able to name and shame. One of the challenges with the Packaging Covenant in the past has been difficulties around enforcement of people who aren't part of it. The ability of governments to name and shame companies that aren't participating is really important…The other benefit is that it helps to raise the profile. As part of the bill, the government is also proposing that there be accreditation and the logo, which actually raise the profile of the covenant in consumers minds. It makes it much more apparent which companies are involved and which companies aren't and, as I said, as branded goods that are consumer-facing, those reputational issues are really important and a real driver.
2.56
Ms Tilley of the department commented:
…there's no reason why APCO couldn't apply for voluntary accreditation under either the existing Product Stewardship Act or the bills before us, should parliament pass them. One of the things that we're seeking to do is increase the value proposition of voluntary accreditation of product stewardship schemes and the government response. The review of the Product Stewardship Act and the government response to that touches on some of the measures that we'll be delivering to help build the value proposition.
Single-use plastics
2.57
Some witnesses and submitters raised concerns that the bill does not sufficiently address the waste management challenge of single-use plastics, nor the environmental damage caused by plastic pollution. For example, witnesses from three environmental organisations noted the bill does not address single‑use plastics, which they all suggested was a 'missed opportunity'.
2.58
For example, Ms Day of WWF-Australia told the committee that there was an urgent need to improve Australia's waste management, recovery and re-use of plastics, and that:
Solutions to plastic pollution need to be led by the federal government. While businesses and individuals play a vital role, they cannot do it alone. This bill provides the opportunity to do so. The government can use the mandatory product stewardship provisions and the minister's priority list to phase out the most problematic single-use plastics, especially where viable alternatives exist. Doing so would follow the likes of the EU, Canada and now New Zealand, who are phasing out single-use plastics at a national level.
2.59
In addressing this issue, some industry organisations noted that work was already underway in states and territories to ban single-use plastics, and that they would support efforts to harmonise agreements between the Commonwealth and jurisdictions.
2.60
Ms Tilley of the department also set out current work being undertaken in this area by Australian governments, explaining:
…all states and territories and the Commonwealth did agree to phase out problematic single-use plastics as part of the National Waste Action Plan or endorsed that commitment as the APCO target for 2025. In addition, a number of states and territories are bringing forward their own regulation and legislation, and the Commonwealth certainly supports and welcomes that.
Other matters raised
2.61
A number of other matters were raised by witnesses and submitters, which this section will discuss briefly in turn.
2.62
Some submitters suggested the Commonwealth could consider improved labelling for products using recycled content as a way of reducing waste, encouraging industry, and informing consumer choice. Other evidence suggested that any mandatory labelling scheme could cause unnecessary compliance complexity and costs for industry. Ms Donnelly of APCO commented that more consultation was needed to determine how labelling could be used in the future to support cleaner waste, greater use of recycled products, and better products for consumers.
2.63
Some stakeholders raised concerns with the bill's provisions for a statutory review to be undertaken ten years after enactment. ALGA suggested the bill should stipulate the review should be undertaken by an independent entity.
2.64
Global PSC noted that a five-year review may be more appropriate, rather than the 10-year review outlined in the RWR bill's provisions. In response, the department pointed out that:
...the final commodity under [the] export ban—mixed waste, paper and cardboard—commences in 2024. So we did have the view that it would be appropriate to allow a few years of the full breadth of the waste export ban to be in place prior to doing a review... But there is nothing stopping governments deciding to do an earlier review. The wording in the bill is 'no later than 10 years'.
2.65
Global PSC also suggested that the Commonwealth could consider setting up a clearinghouse 'to assist with outcomes, compliance and enforcement', as recommended by the Review of the Product Stewardship Act'.
2.66
In the government's Response to the PSA Review, it stated it would consult relevant stakeholders from industry and schemes on the merits of a central clearinghouse.
2.67
The WMMRA and NWRIC raised concerns about the implications of the RWR bill's introduction of the terms 'user' and 'using' in product stewardship arrangements. It was suggested this may weaken the bill as it should be clear that producers and manufacturers are ultimately responsible for product stewardship, rather than consumers. The department commented that it would be 'keen to engage in more discussion with the relevant industry associations' and:
…that there is no intention to weaken the objectives or the intent of this act. It's simply a formulation of words intended to reflect what is implicitly in the existing act and what sits in other product stewardship legislation around the world—that consumers will be involved in the life cycle of a product and can potentially play a role in ensuring appropriate recovery and recycling of those products.
2.68
WMMRA and NWRIC also submitted the government consider the following changes to the wording of the RWR bill:
Replacing 'promote a circular economy' with 'develop a circular economy', to indicate Australia's commitment to transition towards a circular economy;
Including 're-manufacture' in the bill's scope, to indicate the government is committed to building a manufacturing sector in Australia that incorporates the use of recycled materials; and
Including 'design' to indicate product design is an essential component of a sustainable recycling and waste management system.
Committee view
2.69
This report has set out the evidence received by the committee in submissions and at the public hearing.
2.70
The committee notes that this evidence clearly supports the passage of the RWR bill. Participants in this inquiry consistently told the committee that this legislation is an important and transformative Commonwealth initiative. It was clearly recognised that its implementation would be a significant step forward for Australia's approach to recycling and waste management and have positive effects on the sustainability of our national product stewardship arrangements.
2.71
Strong support for the RWR bill reforms has come from across diverse sectors, including local and state governments, representatives of the recycling industry, manufacturers and retailers, other NGOs representing particular industries, and environmental organisations. There was recognition that the Commonwealth has undertaken deep consultation on the development of the bills, as well as a number of complementary policy reforms designed to drive meaningful change in Australia's recycling and waste management framework.
2.72
In unanimously welcoming the intent and substance of the RWR bill, witnesses and submitters observed that reducing waste plastics, glass, paper and cardboard in our environment is essential for our human and environmental health.
2.73
It was also recognised that reducing use and waste of these materials is a critical issue for the Australian public. The committee knows that many everyday Australians are doing their best to reduce their own consumption of plastics, glass, paper and cardboard, and many stakeholders noted that there is significant community expectation for the government to be providing leadership, reform and policy initiatives to drive meaningful change on this issue.
2.74
In considering the evidence, it is clear to the committee that this area offers a tremendous opportunity to transform our domestic economy and create potential new export markets. Given the circular economy is already worth at least $15 billion annually to our economy, putting in place a legislative framework that will encourage and assist it to thrive will drive our broader economy into the future, creating jobs and opportunities for businesses to grow.
2.75
A ban on waste exports for certain materials would set the framework to lift the capacity of our domestic waste and resource recovery industry, as well as offering opportunities for businesses that re-use or export processed waste materials. In this regard, developing our domestic capacity to transform waste products for export and re-manufacture offers clear market opportunities for Australia into the future.
2.76
Evidence also recognised that this legislation is part of a broader suite of government initiatives intended to drive reform across different sectors and levels of government. This includes:
work to modernise the recycling industry through the Recycling Modernisation Fund to encourage private investment in recycling industries and collaborative action between states and territories;
ongoing work to harmonise policy and implementation of the National Waste Policy Action Plan across jurisdictions; and
improving data collection to track outcomes in national waste targets.
The need for ongoing consultation
2.77
The department provided the committee with an outline of the deep engagement and extensive consultation it has undertaken to develop this legislation and its supporting initiatives.
2.78
While the response to the substance of the RWR and supporting bills was overwhelmingly positive, some submitters did express a view that this positive engagement and consultation must continue in the implementation of the bills.
2.79
It was noted that industry and business would need some assistance from the Commonwealth to transform their operations to comply with the waste export ban, particularly as the framework commences for unprocessed glass from 1 January 2021.
2.80
Moreover, it was noted that relevant stakeholders should be consulted on any changes to materials included on the minister's priority list and associated timeframes for action. This would, it was argued, ensure that ministerial recommendations are sufficiently clear for stakeholders to understand their obligations, and that timeframes for action are realistic and achievable.
2.81
The committee notes that the department indicated that its consultations across the various levels of government and relevant sectors are ongoing, and that it will continue to engage with not only the implementation of the RWR bills, but also across the entirety of Commonwealth reforms in this area.
Sustainable government procurement
2.82
A consistent theme of evidence was that Australian governments, of all levels, should adopt more sustainable procurement models, particularly regarding the use of recycled materials. This would not only have a range of material benefits, but also provide leadership to other levels of government, and industry and business more generally.
2.83
To realise the significant environmental and economic potential of reform to recycling and waste management, the committee considers that governments of all levels must have an increased focus on coordination of the current package of reforms to recycling and waste management, of which the bills form an important component. This includes ensuring the harmonisation of policy, guidelines, and regulatory and compliance regimes between Commonwealth, state and territory, and local governments, as well as further work to improve the coordination of infrastructure, investment and data.
2.84
Stakeholders suggested that recycled content could be procured for use in large capital works and infrastructure projects, as well as on local levels. It was suggested that this would not only benefit the environment, but also create jobs and stimulate the growth of our circular economy.
2.85
For example, as outlined in evidence above, using even a modest 1.5 per cent of recycled content in the construction of infrastructure, such as new roads, could double the amount of soft plastics that are recycled in Australia. The committee notes the suggestion that the incorporation of recycled materials in suitable large-scale projects, such as the Western Sydney Airport or Snowy Hydro 2.0, would have more tangible outcomes than targets alone.
2.86
The committee is aware that the government has recently signalled that Commonwealth procurement policies and rules would be updated to incorporate the consideration of recycled materials in all purchasing decisions.
Product stewardship
2.87
Some stakeholders were positive about the provisions of the RWR bill that would allow for voluntary product stewardship schemes, allowing for a flexible and industry-driven approach. It was noted that this was particularly powerful as it would harness an existing and growing appetite in industry to improve product stewardship standards.
2.88
However, the committee notes a number of potential improvements were flagged in evidence. These included the suggestion that accreditation of schemes should be made more streamlined and cost effective, and that any such scheme should not be over-burdened with regulatory requirements and complexity.
2.89
The committee also notes discussion at the hearing around the proposition that APCO could seek to be registered as an accredited scheme under both existing or reformed product stewardship frameworks.
2.90
Some evidence questioned whether the bill should provide the minister with more ability to 'name and shame' entities or persons that fail to undertake recommended actions contained in the minister's priority list. Others saw the bill's provisions as a strengthening of existing legislation, and suggested that there should be safeguards to ensure this power is only used in circumstances where an offence has genuinely been committed.
2.91
In addition, the committee notes that some evidence suggested increasing the scope of the existing product stewardship arrangements that are incorporated in the RWR bill. This included suggestions that the current voluntary targets of the National Packaging Covenant administered by APCO should be made compulsory, as well as the proposition that the Commonwealth should amend the bill to ban single-use plastics.
Other matters raised
2.92
As noted above, support for the bills was clear and consistent across the evidence received by the committee. A number of submissions raised areas of concern or minor amendments to the bills' provisions.
2.93
The committee recommends that the department continue to engage with stakeholders in the implementation of the RWR bills, including on potentially constructive amendments proposed in submissions to this inquiry.
Conclusion
2.94
The committee notes the unanimous support for the intent and provisions of the RWR bills and supporting legislation, as well as for the Commonwealth's broader initiatives in recycling, waste management and product stewardship.
2.95
It is clear that legislative reform will have a range of benefits for Australia's environment, the health of our population, and our economy and employment.
2.96
In supporting the legislation, many stakeholders commented favourably on the Commonwealth and departmental consultation and engagement that shaped the development of the RWR bill.
2.97
Noting proposed amendments to the bill raised in evidence, the committee recommends that the government and department continue to actively engage state, territory and local governments, as well as environmental, industry and other relevant stakeholders in implementing the RWR bill and supporting legislation.
2.98
The committee recommends that the bill be passed.
2.99
The committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment continue its engagement with state, territory and local governments, as well as with industry, business and environmental stakeholders in the implementation of the RWR bills, particularly with reference to costs, penalties, and 'naming and shaming' criteria.
2.100
The committee recommends that in their work with state, territory and local governments to coordinate the implementation of the bills—including the Commonwealth's broader reform to waste management and recycling—the Commonwealth have a specific focus on achieving alignment of infrastructure, investment and data (definitions and reporting), as well as associated policy, guidelines and regulatory regimes.
2.101
The committee recommends that the government should expedite consideration of a cost-benefit analysis of large infrastructure projects including mandatory targets for the use of a percentage of recycled material.
2.102
The committee recommends that the bill be passed.
Senator the Hon David Fawcett
Chair