Government is stalling in the transition from linear to circular, write Rose Read and John Gertsakis, Directors at the Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence.
Making, using and disposing of products can result in a range of environmental and human health problems. Water, energy and natural resources are often used unsustainably; humans and the environment can be exposed to hazardous substances; our air and water can be polluted; waste is often generated; and carbon emissions can be released to the atmosphere.
For these reasons, taking steps to fast-track nationwide solutions is essential and overdue.
Lagging behind
Despite some progress in reducing the environmental impacts, Australia’s circularity rate is still low (4.6 per cent in 2024, compared to the global average of seven per cent), with our Earth overshoot day falling in March.
Progress against the Australian Government’s Circular Economy Framework (2024) and National Policy Waste Action Plan targets is glacial and piecemeal at best, with the deadline for the seven Action Plan targets pushed out a further five years from 2025 to 2030.
There is also little, if any, evidence that the recommendations made by the Circular Economy Ministerial Advisory Group (2024) have been adopted in a fulsome way.
Of related concern is that the Australian Government is yet to publicly respond to the Productivity Commission’s final report on opportunities in a circular economy. And the outcomes of the internal five-year statutory review of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act (2020), which started 18 months ago, have yet to be released publicly at the time of writing this article.
This ongoing delay strips away public and industry confidence, trust and willingness to invest in stewardship schemes and address actions on the Environment Minister’s priority list.
On the positive side, the New South Wales Government introduced the Product Lifecycle Responsibility Act in 2025 and, subsequently, a Product Lifecycle Responsibility Regulation for batteries in 2026.
This approach represents a major shift towards states leading on product stewardship in the absence of any Federal Government action (the last federal producer responsibility regulation was introduced in 2011).
While a nationwide approach is preferable for many reasons, as illustrated by the oil stewardship schemes and the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS), state-based regulations can also be very effective, as demonstrated by the container deposit/return schemes.
Notably, New South Wales’s recent legislation and regulation have been crafted as a template for other jurisdictions to adopt and emulate. Importantly the NSW Product Lifecycle Responsibility Act reflects a much stronger lifecycle approach in comparison to the federal Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, and it provides a legislative framework to make regulations that can be applied across the entire lifecycle of products from design and production through to consumption and post-consumption or end-of-life.
It is vital that other jurisdictions follow suit swiftly to ensure that producers, service providers and consumers are not negatively affected by free-riders or by the absence of regulatory requirements outside of New South Wales.
Consequently, Australia is at a crossroads on circular economy policy and action, including how we evolve our approach to effective product stewardship.
Given the known impacts of over-consumption and over-production, there is an unmistakable need to overhaul and fast-track policy and regulatory development.
Acknowledging the hurdles
Our current policy and regulatory development process is characterised by several factors that collectively work against effective circularity and producer responsibility across the product lifecycle.
The most obvious barrier is our predominantly reactive approach, driven by retail politics, poor problem-framing, vested commercial interests and other ad hoc demands with disproportionate influence. The term ‘stakeholder capture’ comes to mind.
Factors often cited by many stakeholders that continue to constrain circularity and producer responsibility across the product lifecycle include:
- Limited transparency of government processes due to inadequate stakeholder engagement, or submissions and voices that are politely ignored, overlooked or given lip service.
- Inability to acknowledge and act on externalities and the true cost of late intervention.
- Substandard accountability to timeframes and the ability to successfully close-out policy and regulatory development.
- A general government position that significantly over-reaches on the claim of ‘unintended consequences’ as a reason to not pursue regulatory intervention, while simultaneously not applying the same lens on the unintended consequence outcomes of voluntary product stewardship schemes e.g. the negative impact of free riders on the voluntary operations and effectiveness of the tyre, clothing, bedding and battery schemes.
- A deficient intergovernmental process that talks about harmonisation but consistently fails to deliver actionable outcomes. This includes the inability of environment ministers’ meetings to act as a productive forum to deliver tangible results in a timely manner.
These factors are impeding the transition to a circular economy and standing in the way of urgently needed mandatory product stewardship regulations for several products, including tyres, clothing textiles, packaging, solar panels, mattresses, consumer electronics and major domestic appliances.
A new system-oriented approach
A new, system-oriented approach to policy and regulatory development is urgently needed. Grants, public sector procurement, accreditation programs and product certification are essential but are insufficient without complementary regulation that articulates producer responsibilities and environmental outcomes to achieve the system-wide shifts needed to double our circularity rate.
This new approach needs to be adequately resourced and backed by an elevated commitment to sustainable consumption and production that harnesses a strong pro-innovation lens. A system-oriented approach can then deal with many of the second and third order issues currently under justified scrutiny today regarding:
- next and end markets for recovered materials;
- adequate financing of collective product stewardship schemes;
- fair market pricing for all services supporting product stewardship schemes including logistics, reuse, repair and recycling businesses; and
- harmonisation and national uniformity.
A new approach must also show an understanding of sustainable design and all that it can achieve along the supply chain, be it through standards, procurement, labelling, regulation, or import bans that keep environmentally inferior products out of the Australian market.
Three initial actions that can drive the transition to a circular economy:
1. Creating, resourcing and enforcing a Circular Economy Act and any subordinate regulation(s): As per the final report of the Circular Economy Ministerial Advisory Group (CEMAG) Recommendation #4 (2024, p35): “Introduce a Circular Economy Act that provides an overarching, integrated regulatory framework for the circular economy …. a streamlined, agile and proactive tool to regulate the environmental performance of materials and products …”
2. Ensuring mandatory product stewardship across the complete product lifecycle: Consistent with Recommendation #4 of the final CEMAG report (2024, p35): create “setting design rules for products and labelling their performance, similar to the European Union’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation …, including on durability, repairability, recyclability and the presence of chemicals of concern.”
3. Addressing the unintended consequences of voluntary product stewardship schemes: Establish well-designed mandatory approaches for products on the Minister’s priority list and for those industries proactively demanding regulated product stewardship, such as tyres, clothing textiles, mattresses, photovoltaic systems, and major domestic appliances.
Policymakers and regulators need to explicitly acknowledge that Australia’s ambitions for a circular economy demand a frank reckoning with a focus on clear problem-framing, the polluter pays principle, and an unapologetic approach to the design of intelligent regulatory instruments that are co-created with key stakeholders.
Transparency, timely action and genuine consultation are a must. Anything less risks cementing Australia’s reputation as a nation that manages symptoms instead of leading with bold circular economy initiatives.
Related articles:
ACOR proposes new Trigger Framework for product stewardship schemes
Consultation open for revised battery product stewardship scheme
