Regulation for small electrical products and solar photovoltaic systems

YES
The nature of the problem of used small appliances and associated waste is complex with long and wide supply chains, both up and down stream.
The lack of taking collective responsibility and effective voluntary participation in reducing environmental risk is manifest in the market response to the problem – in this case, there is unacceptably poor total recovery, reuse and recycling rates for small appliances in Australia.
Therefore, regulation is needed to send a market signal, establish consistent rules for players, incentives broad engagement and target evidence-based preferred outcomes.

Charitable Recycling Australia is of the view that all of the objectives listed are worthy of focus, and are also interdependent and interrelated.
We would emphasise however that the discussion paper states that an objective of the scheme is to encourage reuse of recovered small appliances – and Charitable Recycling Australia believes reuse of products is an objective that the scheme should focus on equally with recovery and recycling.
This is based on the evidence that reuse and life extension of products generally produces much greater environmental outcomes than material recovery, recycling and avoided landfill alone.

The proposed model is understood and is largely clear and it is logical that it is proposed in this manner to address the stated objectives. We nonetheless would make some general observations.
Firstly, it is acknowledged in section 5 of the discussion paper that management of e-waste does not meet community needs. Putting aside for now that that as we have pointed out in this submission, the scheme should be about product lifecycle improvement and not only “waste”, this fundamental acknowledgement does also not seem to be addressed in the proposed model. We make that observation because the proposed model is essentially the same as current management under the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS). Therefore the discussion paper states current practices are inadequate but then proposes to use current practices.
Secondly, under the liable parties provision it is noted that thresholds for small appliances need to be developed. This is an important piece to understand when considering the proposed model. The sooner this can be determined and discussed the better.
Lastly, it seems from the discussion paper that it is proposed for the scheme administrator to be a private company of some sort, and not Government. If this reading is correct we would ask for this to be discussed further. As has been the case with some of the container deposit schemes rolled out in Australia, the structure and role of the administrator needs to be focused only on delivering the scheme objectives in a sustainable and effective manner. We believe Government is most likely best placed to provide that level of assurance and delivery.

The proposed model seems to adequately address the roles of all stakeholders and will enable participation in relevant areas of responsibility. The proposed structure remains faithful to and seems to be able the address the stated scheme objectives.

Government has a fundamental role to ensure there is appropriate participation of liable parties and other stakeholders, that appropriate standards are set, met and enforced and that companies pay their share for the operation of the program.
If as the discussion paper states, the scheme is going to not only meet the stated objectives but also seek to generate additional environmental and social benefits then Government will have a role in ensuring that price signals and fees are sufficient for these triple bottom line outcomes.

Identify best practice eco-modulation fees developed for other successful scheme, and review their applicability for this scheme, while maintaining a key focus on upholding the integrity of the waste hierarchy to prioritise interventions and avoid unintended consequences.

Lamps and small lighting equipment (desk lamps, floor lamps and other moveable lighting) – because there is a lot of these products in the market and they are disposed of by consumers and need better environmental management.
E-cigarettes and vapes – these are increasingly entering e-waste streams and causing problems due to their materials in them, they are being littered and there are media reports that they are an increasing cause of fires in waste and recycling collection systems.
Toys (more definition in what toys are in or out of the program) – while toys are noted in the discussion paper and the appendix specifies code 950300 which is for scooters, bicycles, tricycles, books, puzzles, toy musical instruments, electric trains, models – which is not all electronic and is not the full range of what is actually electronic. It would be beneficial to more specifically define what and electronic and electrical toy is to ensure the scope of these products is properly captured in the scheme.

No

The proposal with regards to battery operated devices could benefit from clarification.
The discussion paper says that embedded battery products are included but loose batteries are not. Embedded is assumed to mean that the battery is fixed to or part of the product.
Appendix B specifically includes some products such as for example battery operated watches, clocks and toys. Products such as those examples have separate and removable batteries, so the battery is not embedded in the device or product.
In practice, if products such as battery-operated clocks, watches and toys are included then they may be delivered by the consumer to a collection point or network operator with the batteries or without the batteries.
It is assumed that such batteries that are removable may therefore be able to be taken out of the product and then come under the arrangements of other product stewardship schemes (namely the Battery Stewardship Scheme). While that process feasible, it is nonetheless potentially complex and adds handling and costs.
Charitable Recycling Australia is of the view that this situation needs to be considered and specifically addressed in the final scheme design.

Charitable Recycling Australia agrees with the over-arching scheme targets and has no comment with respect to the access obligations, education and awareness requirements or recognition of other recycling.
However, we strongly caution that careful consideration needs to be given to the proposed scheme target, recovery target and reuse obligations.
Firstly, the scheme target establishes that the scheme’s prime objective and overall singular target is recycling. As a genuine product stewardship approach the scheme should not be limited in this way. Product stewardship is not intended to be a policy measure and tool only for waste management and therefore the scheme target should reflect the range of outcomes to be encouraged, incentivised and rewarded. Such outcomes include design for sustainability and environment, efficient manufacturing, material selection and life extension and reuse (and reuse will be discussed further below).
Secondly, the recovery target and obligations as proposed is again focused on end-of-life and waste management, not the whole lifecycle and environmental impacts of the product. The proposed recovery measure does contemplate that many small appliances present issues of limited material recovery, and Charitable Recycling Australia agrees with that note. The processing of many small appliances for material recovery is currently based on shredding the products and targeting only metals recovery – with the plastics, rubber, circuit board and other materials largely lost to landfill.
Thirdly and most importantly, the target for reuse is an obligation and not a target. Charitable Recycling Australia is of the view that reuse needs to be considered as a higher order product stewardship target as it generally achieves better environmental and social outcomes that material recovery and recycling. In the absence of specific targets for reuse, it is highly likely that there will be a reduction in the current rate of product reuse as the products will be pursued for recycling for liable parties to meet their recycling targets and obligations.
While it is appreciated that it is a complex task to set scheme targets and specific liable party targets that require and incentivise reuse, it is fundamental to the scheme achieving its objectives. Charitable Recycling Australia encourages the Government to undertake a more detailed assessment of options for targets on reuse.

As our submission has highlighted, the charitable reuse sector in Australia is an existing, vibrant and effective network for environmental improvement
We note that the discussion paper and proposed scheme generally envisages that the scheme will work in concert with other and existing State based programs. This warrants for consideration and analysis. We note in particular that current State legislated e-waste restrictions are themselves inconsistent, and that the proposed national program does not target all electronic and electrical products that are covered in the States. This seems to be grounds for confusion amongst consumers and scheme participants as well as potentially causing administrative and compliance burdens and barriers for operators.
A key issue is that Charitable Recycling Australia supports reuse. Reuse delivers extensive environmental and social benefits. Reuse must also be accompanied by appropriate checks and balance – the issues of safety and liability are paramount and need to be considered and factored in to the scheme design.
Items to be reused through the scheme must be appropriately test and tagged through nationally accredited training with certified and calibrated test and tag units and mut also comply with all other relevant state and federal laws. On this point, we note that the Victorian Government is committed to repair and reuse of electrical items as a key driver of the Circular economy and has funded grants for this.
We note also that small appliance manufacturers and importers express concerns about reuse due to safety, liability and insurance issues - namely that they might somehow be liable due to faulty used and second hand products. This needs to be addressed upfront through Good Samaritan type laws that set out that persons acting in accordance with the scheme are protected from liability
Charities are key stakeholders and as a large and important pathway for the recovery of used small electronic and electrical products can contribute significantly to the scheme design and operation. We would therefore request that Charitable Recycling Australia be afforded the opportunity to be more closely involved in the final scheme design.
On the above point, the sessions to discuss the proposed regulations did not provide a clear timeline for the next steps in this process. Charitable Recycling Australia notes that it would be prudent for there to be consideration of further information in doing the final scheme design. For example, charities currently collect, test and tag small appliances and redistribute them to people in need. The extent of this activity is unknown at present, let alone the corresponding social, environmental and economic impacts. It would assist scheme design and elements such as reuse targets if such detail was known and factored in.
It is expected that in moving to a regulated approach there will need to be a Regulatory Impact Statement or similar (RIS). Charitable Recycling Australia also expects that there would need to be a cross-industry advisory group of some form to support the RIS process. Charitable Recycling Australia would welcome such an approach and encourages it to be an open and inclusive process.