Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) Australia is among the highest producers of single-use plastic waste per capita in the world;

(b) the majority of plastic waste is sent to landfill, causing environmental and public health harm;

(c) there are growing concerns about the health impacts of plastics, including microplastics and associated toxins;

(d) existing voluntary approaches have failed to meaningfully reduce plastic waste or ensure producer accountability for packaging;

(e) there is broad support for a national, mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme for plastics and packaging to require producers to take responsibility for the full lifecycle of their products, including from industry, environmental stakeholders and the public; and

(f) multiple parliamentary inquiry reports have recommended the Government establish a stronger or nationally legislated EPR scheme for plastics and packaging, including the:

(i) Impact of microplastics and other toxics on human health report (2026);

(ii) No Time To Waste report (2025); and

(iii) Drowning in Waste report (2024); and

(2) calls on the Government, as a matter of urgency, to make rules under the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 to establish a mandatory, national EPR scheme for plastics, which would include:

(a) binding targets for waste reduction, reuse, recycling and recycled content;

(b) eco-modulated fees based on material type and volume;

(c) a producer-funded soft plastics scheme;

(d) bans on harmful materials and chemicals in plastics; and

(e) independent enforcement mechanisms to monitor compliance and impose penalties for non-compliance.

This motion pertains to one of the biggest environmental challenges of our time—plastic waste—and it calls for definitive action by our federal government to address the plastic crisis with a legislated extended producer responsibility scheme, or EPRS. The plastic crisis is threefold: environmental, climate and health. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, three times the size of France, is just one of five massive accumulations of plastic waste in our oceans. Closer to home, waterways in Mackellar, including Dee Why Lagoon and Middle Creek rank amongst the most microplastic polluted in New South Wales.

Plastic production is also fuelling climate change, with petrochemicals projected to drive nearly half of oil demand growth in the future, and the health risks are mounting, with microplastics now found throughout the human body, including in brains, placentas and breast milk. And there is growing evidence for a link between plastic chemicals and the alarming increase in cancers in young people, as well as hormonal disruption, child developmental issues and infertility.

In medicine, when the weight of evidence points to preventable harm, we act. With the collapse of the UN global plastics treaty, global plastics consumption is projected to grow twice as fast as the world's waste management capacity. As a high-ambition nation in those treaty negotiations, Australia must act decisively to address the problem in our own capacity, as many other nations have already done. That is why the member for Curtin and I are launching our plastics policy this week, calling on the government to take a number of practical steps to address the plastics crisis, including introducing a mandatory extended producer responsibility scheme.

The call for an EPRS to be established in Australia comes at a rare moment of hope in public policy. We don't always see those calling for stronger environmental and health protections standing shoulder to shoulder with the very industry that will be regulated, but that is where we are today. Groups including the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, which represents brand owners and packaging manufacturers, are calling for an EPRS alongside environmental organisations.

And the public backs this too. Polling released just last week found Australians across the political spectrum strongly support action to reduce unnecessary packaging. Nearly two-thirds want the companies that produce and sell packaged products to take responsibility for the waste they create throughout its life cycle, including the cost of collection, recycling, reuse and disposal. An extended producer responsibility scheme is a critical part of the solution to the plastics crisis.

Australia is one of the highest producers of single-use plastic waste per person in the world. But shockingly, we only recycle around 14 per cent of that. Our voluntary approach has comprehensively failed. Australia has missed every single one of our national targets set in 2018.

A mandatory EPRS would create a financial incentive to reduce unnecessary packaging, improve recyclability, invest in re-use systems and fund improvements to recovery infrastructure. It would also be fairer. Today, households pay an estimated $70 to $95 a year through council rates and levies to manage packaging waste. Meanwhile, the companies that generate the packaging bear none of that cost or responsibility.

Industry modelling estimates that an Australian EPRS would add just 25c a week to the average grocery bill. And, as producers assume greater responsibility for packaging waste, the other costs currently borne by households will fall. In 2022, Australia's environment ministers committed to reforming packaging regulation. Yet here we are, nearly four years on, and no laws have been delivered. The case for reform has been made time and time again. The government's own 2024 consultation found that more than 80 per cent of respondents support Commonwealth regulation of packaging. Multiple parliamentary inquiries have all reached the same conclusion: there is strong support for a mandatory EPRS to be adopted in Australia.

We cannot afford to wait. Every day we delay, more unnecessary plastic ends up in our environment. The solution is there. The support is there. It's time the government got on with the job. Time expired.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Emma Comer (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by thanking the member for Mackellar for her advocacy in this space in bringing this motion on plastic waste forward. I also want to acknowledge that this motion raises an important issue. Australians care deeply about protecting our unique environment. They want to see less waste going to landfill, healthier waterways, cleaner beaches and a recycling system that actually works. These are goals that the Albanese government shares.

There is no doubt that plastic waste presents a significant challenge. Too much plastic still ends up in landfill; too much finds its way into our oceans, our waterways and our natural environment. We also know that Australians expect governments and industry to work together to reduce waste and build a stronger circular economy. As someone who's studied environmental management at university and got involved in politics through my care for the environment, to me this motion is particularly important.

For too long we've seen big businesses get away with polluting our waterways and oceans with single-use plastics. We are now seeing microplastics in our water, and it won't be too long until we start seeing the currently unknown consequences of ingesting these. Microplastics are now found in the human body—in the reproductive organs, the blood, the brain and even the placenta. Lead, asbestos and plastic all share something in common: they were yesterday's solution but they're today's problem.

It is on all of us to find a way to reduce our use of single-use plastics and, where we cannot, we need to find a way to recycle these in a way that is economically viable but environmentally sustainable. Importantly, we need to address this at the source and ensure that businesses and states are provided with nationally consistent laws and that product stewardship programs are encouraged and implemented.

The question before the House, however, is not whether action is needed. It is in how we deliver the reforms that are practical, effective and long-lasting. Developing a homegrown plastic recycling industry has the added benefit of making more things here and supporting Australian manufacturing. We understand that national reform and packaging regulation is needed. That is why we are partnering with states and territories to reduce plastic waste through investment and supporting them to phase out single-use plastic. This work is being backed by more than $200 million in investment into new and upgraded recycling infrastructure through the Recycling Modernisation Fund. And, as of December last year, we have announced 61 plastic recycling plants that are expected to save more than 300,000 tonnes of plastic a year.

As we know, plastic pollution is transboundary. While the Albanese government is disappointed that the global plastics pollution treaty has stalled, we will continue to do our bit to prevent plastic waste and encouraging recycling as much as possible. The Albanese government has been getting on with the work of reducing plastic waste and strengthening Australia's recycling industry. Since coming to office we have continued investing in recycling infrastructure, supporting innovation in resource recovery, and building Australia's domestic recycling capability. We know that reducing plastic waste not only is good for the environment but also supports Australian manufacturing, creating jobs, and helps build a stronger circular economy.

The report's reference in this motion makes an important contribution to that work. Parliamentary committees play a valuable role in examining complex issues, hearing from experts and making recommendations. This government continues to consider those recommendations as part of our broader work to reduce waste and strengthen Australia's circular economy.

Soft plastics are another important part of this discussion, and, while packaging reforms continue, the government encourages industry-led action to reduce soft-plastic waste. We welcome the supermarket collection trials now operating in more than 700 stores across Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT. These pilots are testing new collection and recycling models that will expand as Australia's recycling capacity grows.

Australians expect governments to get reforms right. They want practical, evidence based solutions that deliver lasting results. For communities like mine in Petrie, protecting the environment is not an abstract issue. We are fortunate to call Moreton Bay home, with its beautiful coastlines, marine life and natural habitats. Our community understands the importance of reducing plastic pollution and protecting these places for future generations. We also want to dig our teeth into a beautiful piece of fish, not yesterday's chip packet.

People in Petrie also know that environmental responsibility and economic opportunity go hand in hand. Investing in recycling infrastructure, growing Australia's resource recovery industry and supporting Australian manufacturing creates skilled local jobs while reducing waste. That is why the Albanese Labor government remains committed to doubling Australia's circularity by 2035, and continuing to work with industry, states and territories to deliver practical reforms that strengthen Australia's recycling system and, most importantly, protect our environment.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the motion moved by the member for Mackellar calling on the government to introduce a national mandatory extended producer responsibility scheme for plastic packaging through existing legislation this year. Curtin and Mackellar sit on opposite sides of the continent—one in Perth and one in Sydney—with a whole a country between us, but we have come together because our communities are telling us the same thing; that Australia has a plastics problem, that we've waited far too long to fix it and that they want national action this year.

I want to begin not in this chamber but on a beach in my electorate. A few weeks ago I joined volunteers for a clean-up at beautiful City Beach. In less than two hours we recovered the most plastic we've ever collected in a beach clean-up: 60 plastic bottle-tops, 2.9 kilograms of plastic bottles, 3.6 kilograms of general plastic and nearly 500 cigarette butts—which are also made of plastic and take up to 30 years to break down. That morning was a small window onto a national problem. Australians are among the highest users of single-use plastic in the world—around 147 kilograms per person every year—and we recycle just 14 per cent of it. The rest goes to landfill; it leeches into our waterways and breaks down into the microplastics now found in our food, in our water and in our bodies.

The data backs up what we saw in the sand. Clean Up Australia's most recent litter report found plastic accounted for 81 per cent of all litter counted across our streets, parks, bushland and waterways. It was the No. 1 litter item in the country. But that same report tells us something hopeful, because it shows us what works. Beverage containers like cans, bottles and cartons now make up 15 per cent of that litter, and that figure is falling. Why? Because containers are the one part of our packaging system already covered by a producer responsibility model—container deposit schemes, now operating in every state and territory. We have the proof of concept. We've run the experiment and it works. So why are we still waiting to apply it to our plastic packaging?

Since 1999 Australia has relied on a voluntary, industry-led model for packaging. Of the National Packaging Targets set in 2018, we missed every single one, most strikingly on plastic, where just 20 per cent was recycled or composted against a target of 70 per cent. Our packaging consumption is projected only to keep going. Meanwhile, the cost of managing that waste falls on households, who pay an estimated $70-$95 a year through their rates and levies, while the producers who put the packaging on the market bear none of the responsibility for it. Good intentions without infrastructure or enforceability are, simply, not enough.

The plan the member for Mackellar and I have developed sets out a practical path: establish a mandatory, national harmonised EPR scheme under the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act, using this parliament has already granted, with binding targets for reduction, reuse, recycling and recycled content, and a producer funded soft-plastics scheme designed from the end market backwards; phase out harmful chemicals through a green, orange and red classification framework; and invest in the research, innovation and education that make the whole system work. The principle's simple: the polluter pays.

Independent analysis finds an EPR scheme would add just 0.1 per cent to product costs, or around 25c a week for a household. EPR is proven, and the support is unprecedented. Industry and community, local governments and environmental NGOs are all aligned. Now, you can't say this for many of the hard problems that come before this place. We usually have to choose between what's popular, what's workable and what's effective. Here, for once, all three point in the same direction. And that's precisely why delay is so dangerous. Windows like this do not stay open. The alignment we have today has taken years to build. If we let this reform slide into another review or another voluntary half-measure, we may miss the window for action. The viability of the recycling industry relies on there being certainty as soon as possible. We've lined up the ducks, and the government needs to take action this year. I commend the motion to the House.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mackellar for bringing this important motion to the House, because plastic waste is a significant challenge, and, to tackle it, we really need an all-in approach: every level of government, big and small business, every local environment group and as many households as possible. And, while all that gains momentum, the government is building the homegrown recycling industry that we need to back this all up.

Single-use plastic pollution is a real problem for our country and the world, and it's something that my community in Bennelong really, really care about. From the Clean Up Australia Day events along our beautiful Parramatta and Lane Cove rivers to all our local environmental and sustainability groups who help train and educate locals on how to reduce their waste, it's something Bennelong really gets behind.

Before I came to this place I spent 10 years on Ryde council, five of them as mayor. Local government, in case you weren't aware, is ground zero for dealing with plastic waste. It needs to be at the table as we resolve this problem. In my time in Ryde, we set a zero-litter-to-river target for our local river catchments because residents were sick of seeing their waterways treated as a dumping ground for someone else's chip wrapper. That experience taught me that, while voluntary schemes work for companies that already do the right thing, for everyone else, 'optional' doesn't mean results. The status quo needs to change, which is why Australia's circular economy framework sets out a clear path to double our circularity by 2035.

I understand the urgency in the member for Mackellar's motion, and I would like her to be well aware that this is right across the government's agenda. We've established the Recycling Modernisation Fund to invest over $200 million, supporting 61 projects and diverting over a quarter of a million tonnes of waste from landfill every year. And we're already supporting established soft plastic trials in over 700 stores nationwide. As processing capacity grows, that service will need to keep expanding. Its popular. People want to recycle their soft plastic, and those solutions need to be set up because strengthening our domestic recycling industry will allow more manufacturing jobs here—more jobs for Australians—and, importantly, won't shift this problem offshore.

It's disappointing that the global plastic pollution treaty has stalled, but that has not slowed this government's domestic agenda down whatsoever. Over the past 18 months, there's been substantial consultation with industry and the recycling sector, including statutory reviews on the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act and Senate and Productivity Commission inquiries. I understand that the minister will convene a further roundtable with industry in the coming months. Last year, understandably, passing our EPBC reform was our most immediate priority. However, our circular economy ambitions were continuing in parallel, and that's important.

We also need to be clear about the politics here. This is a government that is doing something when it comes to plastic waste, the circular economy and recycling, whereas the former government did next to nothing. The last time the Liberals and Nationals were in government, they set targets but did nothing to achieve them. It's a familiar story. They issued the press release but did nothing to back it up. We're actually doing the work to reach these targets.

The method and timing of this reform matters. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Act already grants the government the power for mandatory product stewardship, and we have used that power. But, right now, the global fuel shortage has spiked the price of virgin plastic resin, creating cost pressures that touch everything that we consume daily. Minister Watt has been very upfront with industry, but, ironically, this price spike makes recycled plastic more competitive.

That's why I say that the moment to lock in mandated recycling content with the right sequencing is now, ensuring that industry and councils are at the table. If we rush a national soft plastics scheme, we risk a second REDcycle-style collapse. That's not what our industry deserves. Certainly that's not what our community deserves. They want to recycle their soft plastic, but they expect it to stand up on its own two feet and not collapse again. Rest assured, I'll keep on pushing within government to get this right.

Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about why a national extended producer responsibility scheme for plastics matters not just for our environment but for Australian manufacturing, regional jobs and our circular economy. Australia is one of the highest producers of single-use plastic waste per capita in the world. Every year we use around 1.3 million tonnes of plastic packaging, yet around one million tonnes still ends up in landfill. We know, more than ever, about the environmental impacts of plastic waste and the growing concerns surrounding microplastics and human health.

This debate should not be reduced to a simple environmental argument. This is also an economic issue. It's also about stimulating modern manufacturing in this country. For me, it's also a regional development issue and a question of accountability. If a company profits from placing plastic packaging on the market, it should bear responsibility for what happens to that packaging at the end of its life. That is the principle behind extended producer responsibility. Done properly, an EPR scheme creates incentives to reduce waste, improve product design, increase recycled content and support the infrastructure needed to recover and recycle materials. Most importantly, it helps ensure that the costs are borne by producers rather than simply being shifted onto councils, ratepayers and taxpayers. That is why I support the introduction of an EPR scheme for plastics.

In my own electorate I have the iQRenew facility, which is Australia's first purpose-built soft plastics processing facility, at Kundle Kundle. I visited this amazing facility. The facility is an example of regional Australian businesses stepping up to help solve Australia's soft plastics problem. It takes household soft plastics, such as bread bags, wrappers and packaging films, and transforms them into high-quality recycled resin pellets that can be used again by Australian manufacturers. These are not products sitting in a warehouse waiting for use. Those recycled pellets are already being turned into practical products, including buckets, storage totes, packaging products, agricultural products, irrigation components, industrial liners, ground stabilisation grids, pallets, bollards, construction products, recycling caddies and other consumer goods. The facility has already processed soft plastics from the failed RED scheme from New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the ACT. In other words, my electorate is already doing the hard work.

But the Kundle Kundle facility's future is uncertain without an EPR scheme. Despite years of discussion, reports, consultations and parliamentary inquiries, there remains a deafening silence from Minister Watt on when Australia will finally implement a national extended producer responsibility scheme for plastics. There's been consultation and inquiry, yet businesses still do not know what the future rules of the game will be. At some point, consultation must give way to decisions. The same frustration exists with iQRenew's rail to Kundle circular economy precinct. This proposal would create a nationally significant circular economy hub, centred on the Kundle Kundle site and capable of servicing soft plastics as well as food and organics waste from up to 80 regional councils across New South Wales. The Kundle Kundle site has been home to heavy machinery and rail manufacturing for decades and has a spur line off the main north-south rail freight corridor just north of Taree. It has the potential to create more than 300 jobs and establish the Mid North Coast as a national leader in recycling and circular manufacturing.

The application for Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program funding was lodged in February last year. More than a year later, despite repeated requests and representations, iQRenew and Regional Development Australia are still waiting to hear whether the project will receive support. The irony is hard to miss. The Albanese government speaks often about sustainability and the circular economy, yet one minister remains silent on an EPR scheme while another cannot provide an answer on a project that would help deliver exactly what the government claims it wants to achieve.

The lesson from Kundle Kundle is simple. Australia does not have a recycling capability problem; Australia has a policy certainty problem. We have businesses prepared to invest, we have regional communities prepared to host facilities, and we have the technology and the workforce. What we lack is the right signals that government action can provide. A national EPR scheme would provide the certainty industry has been calling for. It would support domestic recycling capacity, encourage investment and ensure facilities like iQRenew can continue turning what was once landfill into valuable products. (Time expired)

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.