Electronic waste (e-waste) is basically any discarded product with a plug or a battery – from phones, laptops and TVs through to fridges, solar panels and EV batteries. The UN and WHO define it as end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment that often contains hazardous substances (e.g. lead, mercury, brominated flame retardants) and valuable critical raw materials (copper, gold, rare earths). (UNDRR)
Globally, the problem is now on a different scale:
- 62 million tonnes of e-waste were generated in 2022 (7.8 kg per person), and we’re on track to reach 82 million tonnes by 2030. (E-Waste Monitor)
- Only ~22% of that was formally collected and recycled; the rest is landfilled, informally processed or unaccounted for, wasting around US$62 billion in recoverable materials and causing serious pollution risks. (UNITAR)
Australia is a high-intensity player:
- Australia generates ~580,000 tonnes of e-waste a year, and the average Australian produces around 22 kg per person – nearly three times the global average. (The Guardian)
- An estimated 23 million mobile phones are sitting unused in drawers, plus many more ending up in landfill. (The Guardian)
So the policy question is: how do you keep the toxics out of people and ecosystems, stop data breaches, and capture the metals and materials back into the economy?
Below is a structured review of how major jurisdictions tackle that, where Australia sits, and where policy probably needs to go.
1. Core policy tools used internationally
Most countries mix and match a common toolkit:
- Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): producers/importers pay for and organise collection and recycling, often via collective schemes. (epr.sustainablepackaging.org)
- Landfill bans / disposal restrictions: prohibit e-waste from general waste streams (e.g. Victoria, WA, parts of the EU). (Essential Services Commission)
- Take-back schemes: free drop-off at retailers, councils and dedicated sites, funded by producers (EU, Canada, NTCRS in Australia). (Environment)
- Eco-design / hazardous substance restrictions: requirements to minimise certain chemicals and to design for repair and recycling (EU RoHS, Korea and Japan’s resource circulation laws). (eLaw)
- Export controls & Basel Convention implementation: managing transboundary movement to avoid “waste colonialism” – something many countries still struggle with (see recent reporting on US e-waste exports to Southeast Asia). (AP News)
How each country combines these gives you the comparative picture.
2. International approaches – who’s doing what?
European Union – WEEE “gold standard”
- The WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU sets EU-wide rules for collection, treatment and recycling of e-waste. (Environment)
- Producers finance systems that must meet high collection and recovery targets (e.g. 65% of average EEE placed on the market or 85% of WEEE generated). (Environment)
- Strong focus on EPR, hazardous substance control (via RoHS), and increasingly on circular economy and critical raw materials recovery. The Directive is currently being evaluated with a 2026 revision expected to further tighten EPR and collection rules. (Environment)
Take-away: high coverage, binding targets, strong producer obligations, harmonised across member states.
Japan – tightly managed with consumer fees
- The Home Appliance Recycling Law (2001) covers TVs, air conditioners, fridges/freezers and washing machines/dryers. Consumers pay a recycling fee, retailers take back appliances, and manufacturers must meet recycling rate targets (55–82%). (Panasonic)
- The Act on Promotion of Recycling of Small Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment expands to a broad set of small appliances, with municipalities organising collection and certified recyclers doing the processing. (Japanese Law Translation)
Take-away: clear roles for manufacturers, retailers, local government and consumers; high recycling rates but with visible consumer charges.
South Korea – resource circulation model
- The Act on Resource Circulation of Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Vehicles (EEEV Act) requires producers to meet recycling obligations, design products for recyclability and restrict hazardous substances. (eLaw)
- There are explicit recycling quotas and a strong focus on precious and rare metals recovery. (IEA)
Take-away: advanced integration of EPR with eco-design and resource-security goals.
China – WEEE fund scheme
- China’s WEEE system is built around the Regulations on the Administration of the Recovery and Disposal of Waste Electrical and Electronic Products and a national disposal fund created in 2011. (Ministry of Ecology and Environment)
- Producers and importers pay fees into the fund; licensed recyclers receive subsidies per unit of e-waste treated, with a product catalogue specifying covered items. (Ministry of Ecology and Environment)
Take-away: large-scale, centralised financing mechanism; strong on formal sector infrastructure, but informal recycling and enforcement remain issues.
Canada – provincial EPR for electronics
- Canada uses provincial EPR programs: most provinces require producers/importers to finance collection and recycling of electronics (and now packaging), within a broad EPR framework. (Landbell Canada)
- Coverage and targets differ by province, but the direction of travel is towards more comprehensive and harmonised EPR across materials. (H2 Compliance)
Take-away: strong EPR logic, but fragmented and variable performance between provinces.
United States – patchwork and export issues
- No federal e-waste law; management is via a mix of EPA regulations and state-level EPR laws. There are over 140 EPR laws across 35 states, but only some cover electronics. (Environmental Protection Agency)
- Recent investigations show large volumes of US e-waste exported to Southeast Asia and the Middle East under vague trade codes, despite Basel-style controls. (AP News)
Take-away: innovation and private certification (e.g. R2/e-Stewards), but nationally inconsistent and prone to “waste leakage” offshore.
Where does Australia sit in this landscape?
Broadly, ahead of the US at federal level, roughly comparable to Canada, but behind the EU/Japan/Korea on coverage, stringency and circular-economy integration.
3. Australia’s e-waste policy history and current settings
3.1 National waste and circular economy framework
- National Waste Policy (2009, updated 2018) sets the high-level direction to avoid waste, increase resource recovery and protect the environment.
- The National Waste Policy Action Plan 2019 set national targets including:
- 10% reduction in total waste per person by 2030
- 80% average resource recovery rate from all waste streams by 2030
- bans on export of certain wastes. (DAFF)
- In 2024, a new National Waste Policy Action Plan was released, explicitly anchoring the transition to a “safe circular economy” and aligning with SDG 12. (DCCEEW)
E-waste is nested inside this broader circular-economy narrative.
3.2 Product Stewardship Act, NTCRS and B-cycle
Product Stewardship Act 2011 / Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020
- The Product Stewardship Act 2011 created a framework for mandatory, co-regulatory and voluntary schemes to manage products’ lifecycle impacts. (DCCEEW)
- It now operates through the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, which continues to underpin national product stewardship schemes, including e-waste. (DCCEEW)
National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS)
- Launched in 2011; currently operates under the 2020 Act. (DCCEEW)
- Co-regulatory EPR scheme: importers and manufacturers of TVs, computers, printers and IT peripherals above a threshold must join approved arrangements that fund free collection and recycling for households and small businesses. (epa.nsw.gov.au)
- The scheme has reportedly recycled over 360,000 tonnes of e-waste since inception, with targets around 66,000 tonnes per year in recent years. (DCCEEW)
Battery stewardship – B-cycle
- B-cycle is Australia’s accredited national battery stewardship scheme, authorised by the ACCC and backed by Commonwealth, state and territory governments. (B-cycle)
- It covers loose batteries (AA/AAA, rechargeables etc.), with producers and retailers funding collection and recycling; the aim is to create a circular system for batteries and reduce fire and toxicity risks. (B-cycle)
These schemes put Australia in the “serious but narrow” camp: some product groups are well covered; others are barely touched.
3.3 State and territory measures
- Victoria banned all e-waste from landfill in July 2019 – anything with a plug, battery or power cord must go to designated drop-off points, not household bins. (Essential Services Commission)
- Western Australia introduced a phased e-waste-to-landfill ban from 1 July 2024, starting with a defined list of “regulated e-waste” items. (Western Australian Government)
- Other states and territories have a mix of local programs and transfer-station arrangements, but no nationwide landfill ban yet.
3.4 E-Stewardship and the “Wired for Change” reforms
Recognising that NTCRS + B-cycle only cover a slice of the e-waste stream, the Commonwealth has shifted to an “e-stewardship” agenda:
- The DCCEEW E-Stewardship in Australia page (2023) flags a commitment to develop a mandatory product stewardship scheme to reduce waste from small electrical products and solar PV systems. (DCCEEW)
- In June 2023, the “Wired for Change: Regulation for small electrical products and solar photovoltaic system waste” discussion paper proposed regulation to:
- reduce harmful materials going to landfill
- increase recovery and reuse of valuable materials
- expand stewardship beyond TVs/computers to everyday electronics and solar panels. (Google Cloud Storage)
- Ministerial priority lists in 2025 continue to highlight small electricals and solar PV as stewardship priorities, suggesting the government intends to move towards mandatory participation. (DCCEEW)
At the same time, evidence work such as the E-Product Stewardship Evidence Report shows Australian per-capita e-waste at 20.4 kg in 2019, projected to 23.4 kg by 2030, with only about 54% collected and an even smaller share actually recycled. (DCCEEW)
4. How Australia compares
Across key dimensions:
Coverage of products
- Leaders (EU, Japan, Korea, China): broad coverage – large and small appliances, IT, consumer electronics, often vehicles and PV as well.
- Australia: strong coverage of TVs, computers, printers and IT peripherals and loose batteries, but no national scheme yet for most small appliances, whitegoods, PV systems or embedded batteries, although reforms are in train. (DCCEEW)
Legal architecture and targets
- EU/Japan/Korea have binding collection and recycling targets per product category, with relatively strong enforcement and eco-design linkages. (Environment)
- Australia has national waste targets but e-waste-specific targets mainly sit at the scheme level (NTCRS, B-cycle), not as comprehensive legal obligations across all devices.
Landfill and export controls
- Victoria and WA’s bans put parts of Australia close to EU practices, but there is no national e-waste landfill ban yet. (Essential Services Commission)
- Like many countries, Australia still faces challenges tracking exported e-waste, but is less notorious than the US in recent reporting. (AP News)
Performance
- Australia’s 22 kg e-waste per capita is much higher than the global average (~7.8 kg), but collection and recycling rates are middling and heavily concentrated in a few regulated product groups. (The Guardian)
- EU and some East Asian systems achieve higher formal recycling rates but still struggle with informal flows; Australia’s key gap is coverage and consistency rather than the performance of the regulated schemes themselves.
Bottom line:
Australia is respectable but incomplete – a reasonably modern stewardship framework, but not yet scaled to the full e-waste problem.
| Jurisdiction | Policy Model | Key Features | Strengths | Weaknesses / Gaps |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Union (EU) | Comprehensive EPR + Circular Economy | WEEE Directive mandates producer responsibility; high collection & recycling targets; RoHS hazardous substance restrictions; eco-design rules; strong enforcement. | Global benchmark; broad product coverage; strong alignment of design and recycling; high recycling targets. | Persistent informal flows; uneven performance between member states; complexity for producers. |
| Japan | Consumer Fee + Producer Obligation | Home Appliance Recycling Law; consumer recycling fees; mandatory take-back via retailers; high mandated recycling rates; small EEE program for municipalities. | High-quality recycling; clear allocation of responsibility; strong roles for retailers and certified recyclers. | Consumer fees may discourage proper disposal; limited coverage beyond targeted categories. |
| South Korea | Resource Circulation + EPR + Eco-design | Recycling obligations for producers; hazardous substance limits; eco-design requirements; strong focus on precious metals recovery. | Integrates recycling with resource security; robust producer obligations; good performance for high-value devices. | Enforcement challenges for small producers; rapid product turnover strains system. |
| China | Centralised Fund Model + Regulated Recyclers | National WEEE Fund financed by producer/importer fees; subsidies paid to licensed recyclers per unit; defined product catalogue; strict licensing. | Large-scale system; strong central financing; growing formal recycling sector. | Significant informal recycling persists; regional enforcement uneven; system under financial pressure. |
| Canada | Provincial EPR Schemes | Provinces run EPR programs for electronics; producers fund collection & recycling; growing harmonisation across provinces. | Mature EPR structure; broad coverage in many provinces; industry-funded. | Fragmented regulatory landscape; variable targets and enforcement. |
| United States | State-Level Patchwork + Voluntary Certification | Some states have electronics EPR laws; EPA guidance; voluntary recycler standards (R2, e-Stewards). No federal e-waste law. | Innovation in private certification; strong private sector recycling in some states. | No national framework; inconsistent rules; high levels of e-waste export. |
| Australia | Targeted National EPR + State Landfill Bans | National Television & Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS); B-cycle for batteries; Product Stewardship Act; VIC & WA landfill bans; planned expansion to small electronics & solar PV. | Modern stewardship architecture; strong performance in regulated categories; expanding circular economy agenda. | Narrow coverage; no national landfill ban; limited repair/reuse integration; limited focus on PV & EV batteries (but changing). |
5. Expected future direction for Australia
Based on current policy signals, inquiries and consultations, you can reasonably expect:
- Mandatory national stewardship for small electronics and solar PV
- The Wired for Change process and ministerial priority lists strongly suggest a move to mandatory producer responsibility for small electricals and PV, likely building on NTCRS architecture (co-regulatory arrangements, producer funding). (Google Cloud Storage)
- Progressive expansion of landfill bans
- With Victoria (2019) and WA (2024) already in, other states may move in that direction, particularly if Commonwealth stewardship schemes underwrite collection and processing capacity. (Essential Services Commission)
- Tighter integration with circular economy and critical minerals policy
- The 2024 National Waste Policy Action Plan and Productivity Commission work on the circular economy both frame e-waste as a materials and value-recovery issue, not just pollution control, which points towards more emphasis on high-value metals recovery and domestic reprocessing. (DCCEEW)
- Stronger regulation of batteries and embedded electronics
- Recent ACCC and B-cycle decisions, plus fire and safety concerns, are already pushing towards compulsory stewardship and better design for batteries, including embedded batteries in devices. (B-cycle)
- More focus on data security, social outcomes and reuse
- Public commentary highlights privacy and data-breach risks in discarded devices, and the growing role of social enterprises refurbishing phones and laptops for disadvantaged groups. (The Guardian)
6. Guidance – how should Australia proceed?
If you were sketching a direction-setting brief for government, the big moves would look something like this:
1. Move to comprehensive EPR across all e-products
- Extend mandatory stewardship to all major e-product categories (small appliances, large whitegoods, PV, EV and stationary batteries, IoT devices).
- Make producer fees eco-modulated – cheaper for durable, repairable, non-toxic, high-recycled-content products; more expensive for short-lived or hard-to-recycle designs. This pushes the design problem back up the chain, in line with EU practice. (Environment)
2. Implement a national e-waste-to-landfill phase-out
- Use the Victorian and WA models to design a staged national ban, starting with high-toxicity, high-value streams (TVs/PCs, small electronics, batteries, PV) and moving outward. (Essential Services Commission)
- Pair this with guaranteed access: minimum collection infrastructure standards (e.g. within X km for regional communities), supported by Commonwealth–state funding deals.
3. Tighten targets, transparency and enforcement
- Set clear national collection and recycling targets for each category, aligned with or moving towards EU-style levels, and require annual public reporting. (Environment)
- Strengthen compliance powers for the regulator under the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act, including sanctions for free-riding producers and under-performing schemes.
4. Hard-wire repair, reuse and right-to-repair into policy
- Introduce right-to-repair measures: access to spare parts, repair information, and standardised connectors/parts where feasible.
- Integrate reuse and refurbishment targets into stewardship schemes (e.g. minimum proportion of collected devices prioritised for reuse before recycling).
- Fund/partner with social enterprises that refurbish devices for low-income households, schools and community groups, with strict data-destruction standards. (The Guardian)
5. Strengthen export controls and traceability
- Tighten Basel Convention implementation and reporting for e-waste, learning from recent exposés of US exports to Asia. (AP News)
- Require stewardship schemes to maintain chain-of-custody data, including where material is processed and what standards apply.
- Encourage uptake of international best-practice recycler certifications but back them with audit and enforcement rather than relying purely on voluntary schemes.
6. Plan explicitly for the solar PV and large-battery wave
- Finalise the solar PV and small electricals scheme with robust producer obligations and clear end-of-life responsibilities for panels and inverters. (Google Cloud Storage)
- Develop separate or linked arrangements for EV and stationary batteries, focusing on safe collection, transport, dismantling and high-value materials recovery (lithium, cobalt, nickel, etc.).
7. Integrate e-waste with critical minerals and regional development
- Treat e-waste as a secondary mining sector: GEM 2024 estimates billions of dollars in recoverable resources globally; e-waste recycling can complement Australia’s primary mining of critical minerals. (UNITAR)
- Target some reprocessing and remanufacturing capacity to regional centres, pairing jobs and skills policies with stewardship-funded infrastructure.
7. Where this leaves Australia
In short:
- Problem: very high per-capita e-waste, modest formal recycling, and a looming wave of PV and battery waste. (The Guardian)
- Strengths: modern product stewardship framework, successful flagship schemes (NTCRS, B-cycle), and an emerging circular-economy policy spine. (DCCEEW)
- Gaps: incomplete product coverage, uneven landfill controls, limited repair/reuse integration, and patchy data/export oversight.
If Australia leans into comprehensive EPR, national landfill bans, right-to-repair and stronger export controls, it can move from being a solid mid-tier performer to a front-runner, while also strengthening critical-minerals security and regional jobs.
Northstream Analytic 