Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export – Paper and Cardboard) Rules 2023 - Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water

On Friday, 28 March 2025 the government assumed a Caretaker role. Some consultations have been deactivated until further notice, in accordance with the Guidance on Caretaker Conventions.

On this page

Summary of Stakeholder Consultation Feedback

Public consultation on the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Waste Paper and Cardboard) Rules 2023 (the Rules) has now closed.

We asked for feedback on the draft Rules via a survey and submission process.

How you had your say

The draft Rules for waste paper and cardboard were published on the department’s website from 14 August to 11 September 2023 alongside a survey. The survey sought specific feedback from people on the proposal to regulate mixed paper and cardboard exports from 1 July 2024 by imposing a maximum contamination rate of 5%, tightening to 3% in 2026.

Respondents were asked questions relating to their support for the draft Rules and proposed contamination thresholds, and could further expand on their input with a detailed submission.

We invited feedback publicly, and through direct contact with a range of stakeholders operating in the waste paper and cardboard sector – collection, recovery and recycling industry; and across governments.

Who engaged

38 people or organisations participated directly in the consultation.

26 submissions were received through our survey, with 12 separate submissions received in addition to the survey via email.

Consultation responses were from:

Peak bodies (5)
Industry associations (3)
Councils (11) and local governments (3) collectively representing the views of over 330 councils
Industry; recyclers (4), retail (1) and ‘other’ including manufacturers, waste management companies, suppliers, exporters (7)
State governments (4)

The majority of responses were from New South Wales (29%) followed by Victoria (18%), Queensland (16%), Tasmania (12%), Western Australia (12%), Northern Territory (4%), South Australia (3%), Australian Capital Territory (3%) and Outside Australia (3%).

What you said

There was no clear agreement among stakeholders with approximately 40% either supporting the Rules as drafted or with changes to timelines or thresholds, and the other 60% not supporting the draft Rules. A summary of key views is included below.

Appropriateness of contamination thresholds

There were differing views about the appropriate threshold from different stakeholder groups.

Specific concerns included:

The proposed contamination thresholds were not achievable uniformly across the country without significant infrastructure upgrades which could not be done before 1 July 2024.
Small to medium entities, mostly located in regional and remote areas would have difficulty meeting a 5% contamination threshold and may never be able to meet a 3% contamination threshold.

Larger industry entities called for higher levels of regulation and were comfortable with lowering the contamination thresholds to 1-2%, in line with some overseas standards. It was noted, however, that commercial contracts allow for price adjustments if higher contamination is received.

Alternate suggestions provided were:

To establish standards across the whole of the supply chain to support a circular economy and provide a level playing field for council tenders and confidence to community and government, for example, set minimum Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) standards.
To set a broad expectation for contamination, and then allow the market to operate with commercial contract decisions around price ultimately managing acceptable contamination.

Market impacts

Several responses noted that mixed paper and cardboard is not waste, but rather a valuable commodity traded in vibrant domestic and export markets.

Concerns were raised that:

There are large quantities of mixed paper and cardboard surplus to domestic needs. A release valve is needed for this excess to be exported, particularly around peak times.
Exports play an important role in maintaining pricing competition in the domestic market. Loss of access to export markets may drive a domestic duopoly or monopoly and increase prices to MRFs, councils and households.
Australian entities may be disadvantaged in international markets if, or when, the proposed levy and export tax associated with the waste exports scheme is introduced.
There is a lack of domestic demand for recycled products which needs to be addressed.

A small number of responses saw the Rules as providing the opportunity for Australia to set an example for responsible waste management practices, encouraging other nations to follow suit.

Infrastructure

Views expressed around the capability of existing infrastructure to meet the proposed contamination thresholds also differed across the country, including:

Regional and remote areas mostly operate using small to medium sized entities who do not currently have the infrastructure to achieve the proposed thresholds within the timeframes set.

Currently all Northern Territory and Western Australian recovered mixed paper and cardboard is exported due to a variety of factors including close proximity to international markets, coupled with distance from central processing capacity and relatively low volumes.
The infrastructure upgrades required to meet the contamination threshold that may need government investment or may result in increased costs to the councils for waste collection.

Alternative suggestions were to:

Delay introduction of the Rules to give time for infrastructure, including from Recycling Modernisation Fund (RMF) projects, to come online.
Look at ways to improve the quality of what goes into MRFs to assist in increasing the quality of outputs.
Align all related Government programs; RMF, kerbside and packaging with implementation of the waste paper and cardboard Rules.

Environmental impacts

Many responses included support for the intent of the waste exports scheme as a whole.

Many responses also provided feedback that there was no environmental need to regulate the export of mixed paper and cardboard because current export practices do not present significant harm to the environment.

In addition, responses raised concern that:

Where contamination rates could not be met, implementation of the Rules as drafted may result in ‘stranded’ recovered paper resources, which despite their international commodity value might end up in landfills or stockpiles.
With stockpiling comes increased safety and fire risk and loss of valuable resource in addition to flow on impacts to infrastructure.
Landfill of unexportable paper and carboard could increase greenhouse gases and create a reduced scope for carbon emissions offsetting negative gas exports emissions.

Seasonal variation

The majority of responses did not see the need for a seasonal variation to be factored into the contamination threshold. The few responses that did see the need for a seasonal variation were the same respondents who did not support the Rules as drafted and saw seasonal variation as another pressure point if contamination thresholds were introduced.

Rules start date

The majority of responses suggested a need to delay introducing the Rules to enable infrastructure to come online.

Additional feedback and suggestions included:

Additional time was also needed for MRFs to negotiate contract variations with local councils that would be triggered by a change of law.
Could delay contamination rates for the first year and instead ask exporters to provide audits to demonstrate current levels of contamination.
This audit data could then be used to track exporter performance over the first two years and then inform a decision on an appropriate contamination threshold.

Licensing process

Responses included several suggestions specific to the licensing process and requirements, including:

Remove the requirement for licences to specify use, importer commercial entity and country. These conditions will unnecessarily restrict commercial trades.
Remove references to ‘specifications’ as these do not apply to mixed paper and cardboard bales.
The Rules should be written so liquid paperboard can still be exported as mixed paper and cardboard.
Ensure the licence application process is not lengthy or onerous. Current processes for licensing in other waste streams takes too long.
Exemptions need to be available and to be actioned quickly.
Reduce proposed reporting requirements as they are onerous, especially around date and document record keeping, and are not commercially viable.
Use commercial trading contracts as evidence for ability to meet licence conditions.

Monitoring and evaluation data

Suggestions were made regarding the type of information that should be monitored before a tightening of contamination thresholds was introduced. These included monitoring:

Process inputs (materials, volumes and percentages of gross contamination rates) and relative post-processing outputs.
Any change in recycling rates, consumer behaviour, improvements in product packaging and increased accessibility to recycling facilities.
The sector’s ability to meet the initial 5% contamination threshold. The economic impacts, if any, of price increases passed on by councils in meeting regulatory requirements.

Cost Recovery

Concern that the proposed levy will disadvantage Australian exporters, make exporting less profitable and result in poor environmental outcomes.

What happens next

The final rules are expected to be published in early 2024. If you would like to be notified when more information is available and applications can be accepted, please email your contact details to ExportWaste@dcceew.gov.au and we will add you to the paper and cardboard regulation register for notification.