Australia needs to make changes to ensure that we no longer export low‑quality waste resources, and that we make urgent and meaningful progress towards (1) reducing waste overall and (2) achieving substantially increased rates of recycling.
Australia is one of the highest per-capita producers of waste in the world, and our record when it comes to waste reduction and recycling is poor. For example, we produce more than 100 kilograms of waste plastic per person each year and yet barely manage to recycle 12 per cent. We also face a growing and serious problem when it comes to plastic pollution in our oceans, and we have seen issues arise in recent years with respect to landfill contamination and dangerous fires that result from the stockpiling of waste. In relation to the plastic pollution of our oceans, while much of the plastic may have its origins elsewhere, we must recognise that a developed, sophisticated, and well-resourced country like Australia can hardly be critical of the waste circumstances and practice in other countries when our own performance is so poor.
Export bans which are the focus of the Bills under inquiry are being implemented because other countries have refused to receive this waste, which is partly because the management of waste in recipient countries has been highly questionable. There is evidence that waste resources imported for recycling by China or Vietnam or Malaysia from countries like Australia have been burned or dumped, thereby contributing to the significant environmental harm that results from a broken waste-management system. Australians would be aghast to think that items collected for recycling from their homes would ultimately be dumped in rivers in Asia.
Labor members acknowledge that the license-and-declaration system implemented under these Bills which will control the export of waste by a range of material categories, and will come into effect by category over the next few years, is for the main part clear and sensible.
The evidence to this inquiry in support of a legislative ban on waste exports is compelling and the bans should proceed to be implemented on the basis that Australia should take responsibility for managing our own waste; should do much better in avoiding environmental harm; and should look to derive benefits from the resources and jobs that can be created through progress towards a circular economy.
The evidence provided to this inquiry has overwhelmingly emphasised the need for more extensive reform in keeping with a robust, multi-pronged, and nationally aligned strategy to address Australia's current waste crisis, its impact on our natural environment, and the missed opportunities with respect to new manufacturing.
Australia's lack of capacity to recycle the waste we produce, especially in certain material categories like plastic, is not unrelated to the lack of demand for recyclate, and there is no doubt this must be an area of focus and support, both through relevant procurement arrangements, and through product stewardship arrangements that are effective in seeing changes in product design and the lifting of recycled content outcomes.
While the case for a wider application of co-regulatory or mandatory product stewardship schemes is clear and has been reinforced by evidence provided to this inquiry, it has also been noted that the government is yet to take action in this space.
The government's lack of focus on reforming Australia's product stewardship regime was presented in a range of submissions.
For example, the National Waste and Recycling Industry Association made a submission as follows:
…it does not appear that in its current form in the Bill (section 67 and 68) this will be very effective in reality as
there is nothing that compels the Minister to act should the recommended actions not be completed (see Section 67, Clause 4).
nor is it clear if the Minister can actually recommend in the priority list "apply for accreditation as a voluntary arrangement" as an action. Section 67, Clause 1(a) simply says "some form or regulation under this act".
The Global Product Stewardship Council's submission stated:
We encourage the Government to consider reflecting more of a clear willingness to pursue coregulatory approaches as appropriate to build upon the proposed strengthening around the Minister's priority list. There's a risk that the producers and schemes actively involved in product stewardship are undercut by free riders that benefit from having schemes in place without contributing their fair share.
It is important to note that the former Labor Government established the Product Stewardship framework in 2011 which included the establishment of the National Television and Recycling Scheme, a co-regulatory scheme under the Act which has resulted in collection and recycling of 360,000 tonnes of computer and TV e-waste. Since the election of the Coalition in 2013, the government has failed to introduce any additional co-regulatory or mandatory schemes, while presiding over the demise of previously accredited voluntary schemes, with the exception of MobileMuster.
Witnesses recognised that through the shortcomings of the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011 (NEPM), which regulates industry participation for improving environmental outcomes of plastic packaging, there has been minimal progress towards the key targets (e.g. to achieve 70 per cent recycling of packaging and the elimination of unnecessary packaging).
This point was driven home in evidence from the organisation responsible for executing the objectives of the NEPM, the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), which said:
I think it [the review of the NEPM] would have been a useful contribution to the discussion. The NEPM, like any regulation, has both positive and negative in it, and there are things that we recognise could be done better going forward. I think the fact that we're 20 years into that regulation and there hasn't been a review is probably more indicative of some of the issues or some of the perceptions that are currently out there, and I think that if a NEPM review had been done earlier then obviously it would have informed this discussion and given rise to thinking around other alternatives as well. Our view is that there are some very clear areas within the NEPM that need to be addressed, and we do welcome the opportunity and absolutely advocate for it and have done so for some time.
Labor members believe the evidence given by APCO should be heeded on this matter, and note that the government could and should have reviewed the NEPM in conjunction with the review of the Product Stewardship Act 2011 on the basis that all regulatory measures governing waste and recycling should be considered in terms of their collective and coordinated impact. Unfortunately the review of the PSA was itself delayed by several years.
Although the majority of evidence put forward was supportive of the premise of APCO's National Packaging Targets which require 70 per cent of Australia's plastic packaging to be recycled or composted by 2025, it was noted that the current recycling rate of such items remains at 16 per cent which raises considerable concern that these targets will ever be achieved within the current voluntary participation framework. Labor members agree with the waste industry on the need for the targets to be reviewed in 2021 to determine whether the regulatory framework governing these targets will deliver the intended outcomes by 2025. Unless there is a clear and dramatic shift in the present underperformance with respect to progress on these targets, the policy and regulatory settings need to change, and the government must act accordingly.
Labor members note and agree with the concerns of the waste industry who believe that the failure of the Morrison Government to implement a ban without first finalising market incentives for the use of recycled materials is creating a risk that domestic reprocessed materials which can be repurposed may still go to landfill after the bans are in place. As noted, such matters can only be addressed through the adequate provision of Commonwealth procurement targets that would drive the acquisition of waste materials for key public infrastructure projects. The Department of Agriculture, Water, and the Environment advised the inquiry that such measures were being worked on – but the question remains: why has so little progress been made in relation to a problem that has been well understood for some time, especially when industry participants and experts consistently point to the need for coordinated action?
In this vein the evidence from Ms Gayle Sloan, Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia, is salient:
I think the perverse outcomes we were talking about first and foremost were the fact that we've lost access to markets by bringing in the export bill without the commensurate demand onshore. The opportunity existed, if there was more emphasis on the product stewardship, with the paradigm shift towards generator responsibility, of utilising that product onshore. So, if I'm the packager that's making the plastic that was previously getting exported, now I have to use that packaging material in Australia, because it's good food grade. We could have avoided those perverse outcomes of additional stockpiling or landfilling. So the opportunity that's being missed today is the integration of these packages to change the shift of the paradigm to say, 'This is good material that could be used over and over in Australia and create jobs'.
A key pillar of the Product Stewardship framework is the Minister's Product Priority List. This provides industry and the community with a clear statement of expectations by the government on which products must be the focus of responsible and effective stewardship arrangements. In the Bills under consideration, the government's minor improvements to the list may result in greater industry participation through the setting of timelines, but Labor members believe a lack of transparency over the decision-making process for listing could undermine the effectiveness of this change, and, in any case, it is hard to feel that the minimal tinkering in these reforms is sufficient in the face of the present waste crisis.
Labor members also note evidence that recommends the establishment of an independent advisory group, similar to the body/function established under the initial version of the Product Stewardship Act 2011 and subsequently disbanded by this government. Product design and waste reduction is an issue that touches all levels of government and involves all parts of industry. A properly constituted and resourced independent committee devised of experts and stakeholders would ensure the Minister is making decisions that secure the objectives of this legislation and result in improved rates of recycling, and a reduction in waste overall.
This point was made by the Global Product Stewardship Council in its submission:
We note that the Act originally included a Product Stewardship Advisory Group (PSAG) to advise the Minister on the Minister's priority list; until the PSAG was disbanded, this provided some measure of transparency about list development and products to potentially be listed. The announced Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence does not appear to address this role and the product impact assessment process is unclear, so we recommend that steps be taken to help ensure greater transparency around product impact assessment and prioritisation, and development of the Minister's priority list.
Senator Nita Green
Committee Member
Senator Marielle Smith
Committee Member