Submissions
ASBG prepared this submission to on the Product Lifecycle Responsibility Bill 2025 (PLR Bill) to assist in its efficiency, implementation and to minimise duplications.
Use of this legislation to better manage end of life Li-ion batteries is welcomed and supported, but the Bill is far broader. The PLR Bill is all encompassing broader, enabling its capture of any end of life product, should the Government choose. ASBG’s main issues with the Bill is it appears to duplicate what the Commonwealth is currently doing and planning to do, with products under its environmental legislation. Avoidance of duplication between the Commonwealth and State required documentation and actions is a critical issue for businesses to minimise the cost of red tape on their operations. If enacted, as is, duplication is the main issue for our members.
A number of questions on the way this legislation will operate in the future are listed, such as:
- Will the Government agree to exempting (ring fencing) those products which have an existing or listed under a proposed Commonwealth Product Stewardship scheme?
- Will the Government provide a priority list of products that are to be considered for the NSW PS scheme in the future?
 ASBG Comments on the Product Lifecycle Responsibility Bill 2025 | 673 kB |
The Australian Sustainable Business Group (ASBG) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Review of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act (RWRA).
ASBG supports moving to a more circular economy, which includes our trading partners and the return of materials to close the circle.
ASBG's submission made the following main points on the RWR Act and more:
- The need for better policing of ‘free riders’ in Product Stewardship schemes
- To improve the circular economy, the Australian Government should plan, cooperate and implement a number of actions with all other Australian jurisdictions. This includes assistance with the siting of controversial, but essential waste and recycling infrastructure including landfills, EfW etc.
- The Waste Export ban on paper & cardboard either be eliminated or significantly reduced in its costs
- All other waste export ban materials have reduced costs in licence fees etc.
- Unprocessed scrap metal be added to the Waste export ban list of waste types
- Improve waste data by standardization, jurisdictional cooperation and provision of this data publically in appropriate reports
- Assist to reduce contamination levels in household bins, by standardization, education and policing
- Introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility scheme on packaging, as across the EU, is opposed as per ASBG's prior submission to DCCEEW
- Government to take a lead action by Government procurement preference to products from bona fide participants in Product Stewardship schemes and other suitable criteria
The Australian Sustainable Business Group (ASBG) supports the Protection of the Environment Legislation Amendment (FOGO Recycling) Bill 2024 (FOGO Bill), especially as it is designed to extend the operational life of putrescible landfills across NSW.
ASBG also identified a number of issues with the Bill including:
- Finding that businesses captured need to install a FOGO weekly collection by 1 July 2026.
This is considered unfair as Local Government has until 1 July 2030 to do generally the same. - The definition of 'relevant premises' which captures sites for FOGO, can capture manufacturing sites with canteens.
However, most food manufacturing sites use higher order recycling of food wastes, e.g. stock food etc.
The use of the FOGO laws should prevent forcing higher order recycling to use FOGO a lower order option. - ASBG recommended that food sites not be required to prove higher level food recycling as this can lead to heavy administrative outcomes and some sites dropping their higher level food recycling to avoid the reporiting or similar requirements.
- Overall that all manufacturing sites with canteens be specifically exempted from the FOGO requirements.
This is justified as these sites will have good recycling systems in place for food and otherwise, consequently, do not require FOGO enforcement.
| ASBG's Comments and Issues on NSW FOGO Bill 2024 | 748 kB |
ASBG expresses concern the NHMRC is adopting the PFOS 4 ng/L guideline value recently issued by the US EPA.
The NHMRC’s methodology used includes a 300 fold safety factor in addition to other margins of safety added.
ASBG recommended the HBGVs be reviewed especially given FSANZ’s evidence that on 2% of foods examined show the presence of PFOS.
ASBG supported the use of WHO's approach to PFOA by the NHMRC, as the US EPA uses a non-threshold linear approach.
Consequently, the NHMRC has a PFOA HBGV of 200 ng/L compared to US EPA’s at 4 ng/L.
The NHMRC should also consider the knock-on impacts of setting lower PFAS HBGVs which will become hard limits in many documents.
This will include, soil and groundwater, largely affected by changes to PFAS NEMP 3.0, water limits, sewage acceptance, landfill acceptance and
will impact many wastes especially organic wastes including biosolids, compost etc, waste soils with PFAS, etc.
A submission by the US American Water Works Association, was critical of the US EPA’s science or lack of it, and also showed that increasing the
PFOS & PFOA limits from 4 ng/L to 10 ng/L would reduce drinking water treatment costs by 65%.
Finally ASBG recommended the NHMRC should publish contextual information to place is PFAS HBGVs in comparison with other major harmful substances.
This is to show the assumptions used, full safety margins used – over 300 x- and the concentrations being set in context with other harmful substances.
This will enable the public to balance the PFAS risks with other known risks.
| ASBG's Submission on the NHMRC Review of PFAS in Australian Drinking Water 2024 | 1032 kB |
ASBG has considerable concerns with the Paper. While Option 1, ongoing use of APCO is preferred by ASBG it is incomplete, in that it requires considerable support by all Australian Governments to make a more effective circular economy. Also used packaging should be treated as a part of the whole circular economy process, where its recycling etc. represents only 10% of the waste stream.
The Paper is somewhat confusing as it seems to partly follow a Regulatory Impact Assessment, but provides no cost-benefit analysis. All three Options should go through this process, but it seems on the final regulation may be have an RIS.
The paper's preferred Option 3, the EPR scheme, lacks many details, and will be very expensive, where costs of over $1b p.a. or more, are likely as a starting amount. EPR taxes on packaging materials will result in perverse outcomes where good packaging materials will simply rise in price to just under their competitive poorer packaging material (now taxed) rate. This undermines the incentives to change packaging materials to a more recyclable type.
Also concerning is there is no identification of how the $1b will be spent.
Regardless of which Option is used, the following is required and recommended overall is a better planning and management, especially from a waste infrastructure perspective including:
- The commonwealth revamping its export ban on recyclable materials
- State and territory governments work with industry to a better, more consistent plan of strategic planning, siting of recycling infrastructure and downstream residual waste management including
covering EfW and landfill supplies. - All parties to improve education on waste management.
- Local Governments to remove obstructions and reluctance to teaming up to provide sufficient waste / recyclate flow rate to provide economies of scale for efficient and effective recycling facilities where appropriate.
| ASBG's Submission on the Reform of Packaging Regulation Consultation Paper 2024 | 1184 kB |
