As we headed towards the end of 2024, and a Federal election in 2025, it was time to take stock of what has been achieved in the past 12 months. Environment Ministers from across Australia will be coming together in December 2024 for what should be one of the most consequential meetings of its type in many years. This may be the last meeting for the current Federal Environment Minister – a Minister that arrived with such great hope and many promises to act and even regulate.
But will this be the decisive and necessary meeting that industry wants and needs? One where we will all be pleasantly surprised to learn that there was method to the tortoise-like pace of reform to date, and that despite what it seems, we really are going to win this race for both the sake of industry and the planet?
This time last year I drafted what I hoped would be some of the outcomes we would see on key issues that required progress in 2024 at the environment ministers meeting (EMM). Let us check in on how we are tracking against it, and what still needs to be done.
National framework
WMRR hoped the EMM would adopt a national framework for waste and resource recovery (WARR), based on the European Union Waste Directives, to be implemented from 1 January 2025. This legislative framework not only establishes targets but also embeds the polluter-pays principle and extended producer responsibility.
Sadly, there has been no meaningful progress towards regulation like this in Australia, though the Federal Government has recently announced a review of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020. The terms and timing are at best vague, with no possibility of being completed before the Federal Election. We also have the reference to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into the circular economy. Again, this will not be finalised until well after the election and there is no guarantee that it will even be adopted by Government when finalised given the Right to Repair Report has languished since December 2021.
Read more: Environmental Minsters’ meeting becomes wasted opportunity
Why do we need such a framework and such action? Because we are at 63 per cent resource recovery nationally and all the ‘easy” stuff has been done. Without meaningful reform to generator obligation and a consistent level playing field for all (including importers) ensuring that products are safe and able to be recovered, coupled with obligations to design sustainably and prolong life, we have no hope of achieving our national targets, nor living within planetary boundaries. This leads to the next issue…..
Product stewardship
Optimistically given the risk and importance, I hoped there would be a mandatory product stewardship scheme established for batteries and battery-powered products by 1 July 2025. The reality is that after a slow start, we are now seeing some good work progressed by NSW and Victoria to develop a regulatory impact statement (RIS) for a mandatory scheme for four defined battery categories (covering small to larger mobility and storage batteries) at this upcoming meeting. Let’s hope there is alignment and action.
However, if one thinks about this, they would realise this ongoing product-by-product approach to stewardship in Australia – that sucks resources from state jurisdictions (as the Commonwealth appears to have vacated the field of late) – is not efficient.
Has anyone looked at the Battery Directives framework? Yep, another under the above-mentioned EU Waste Directives. This approach makes sense in that it addresses the end-to-end value chain and does not set up yet another collection or ‘pay and throw’ scheme for a narrow product category. It is more straightforward for all involved if there is a clear, consistent overarching framework, where those that make know the rules, not just those that take.
Currently, it would also appear that stewardship development is being undertaken by individual states leading on resourcing the initial stages of development. It is hoped the goal remains nationally consistent schemes, given we need to learn from both community and industry frustrations over the piecemeal and inconsistent ways that schemes and policies are set up.
We also need to note that, to date, the Federal Government has not demonstrated a strong skill set in delivering successful national schemes. When these initiatives are referred to the Federal Environment Department, it often feels like code for ‘where ideas and initiatives go to die.’ This may mean we need a new paradigm for federation and implementation, which arguably means some states working together to implement and others joining. We look to be already seeing this with the battery RIS – with NSW and SA publicly stating they are prepared to go alone.
National packaging laws
Again, see previous – why can’t we adopt and accept the approaches taken in the EU? With the successful adoption of a national framework, like what we have recently seen in the EU with the adoption of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC, this would again provide a consistent framework under which everything flows. Better still, many of the multi-nationals that import to Australia already operate under this regime.
In theory, it was a bit of a relief to finally see a document on regulating packaging. After 15 months of handwringing since there was national agreement to introduce design rules and regulate packaging, and over two decades of failed and ineffective policy – this is probably the best we can say.
WMRR’s full response to the packaging proposal can be found in our submission, but in short, it is disappointing there was little consideration of the systems thinking required across all three waste streams. In all honesty haven’t we moved beyond ‘recyclable’ as the measure? Instead, it must be ‘actually recycled’, and in Australia given the export restrictions, this means creating infrastructure and ensuring market demand for recycled materials.
Regrettably none of the options proposed provided for a funded scheme –including market development and packaging recovery at scale – to address the capacity shortfall the paper highlights. Packaging reform needs to drive the necessary shifts to achieve a regulated scheme that meets the targets set, as well as building a safe circular system for all packaging at scale (not just what goes through the household). The current consultation paper fails to do this. It also failed to consider other current legislation such as export restrictions and container deposit systems – both of which are part of the packaging ecosystem. One can only hope the consultation is genuine and the government listens.
Conclusion
There remains a lot to be done, and a lot could be done with strong considered regulation from the Minister who arrived prepared to ‘regulate’. I have every digit crossed that we will see the brave and clever regulation soon, so that we can create a circular economy in Australia and stop going around in circles.