National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011

Key legal and administrative concepts are defined in the Measure and structured to support the Covenant’s product stewardship model. These concepts determine who is treated as responsible, which materials are in scope, what counts as recovery, and what data must be collected.

• Brand owner. Broadly defined to capture trademark owners or licensees, franchisees, first Australian seller of an imported product, suppliers of in‑store packaging to retailers, and for plastic bags the importer/manufacturer or the retailer providing the bag at point of sale (clause 3(1) brand owner). This definition assigns legal responsibility across diverse actors in the packaging chain.
• Consumer packaging and distribution packaging. Consumer packaging covers packaging for retail consumer products including distribution packaging that contains multiples of products; the definition varies slightly before and after instrument registration (clause 3 consumer packaging; clause 2 deals with post‑2010 nomenclature changes). Distribution packaging is defined to include secondary and tertiary packaging such as cardboard shippers and pallet wrap (clause 3 distribution packaging).
• Product stewardship and Covenant. The Measure treats the Covenant as a voluntary, industry‑government agreement founded on product stewardship and shared responsibility (clause 5(1)). The Covenant, its Covenant Council and associated Sustainable Packaging Guidelines (previously the Environmental Code of Practice) form the voluntary backbone that the Measure is designed to support (clause 2).
• Free rider. A defined concept for a brand owner or organisation in the packaging chain that is not a Covenant signatory and not producing equivalent outcomes (clause 3 free rider). The Measure contemplates mechanisms to prevent and remedy free riding (clause 9(6), clause 18).
• Recovery rate and recovery data. Brand owners must record detailed weights and units used, recovered, reused or recycled, exported, energy recovery and landfilled quantities for each packaging material type (clause 16(1)(a)-(h)). The Measure sets a recovery rate to be calculated under clause 16(2) (formula reproduced in the instrument as an image) and requires records to be kept for five years and made available to nominated agencies for inspection and audit (clause 16(3)-(4), (6)).
• Scope and material definition. “Material” for the purpose of reporting is the principal component of the container and excludes incidental components such as labels and closures (clause 16(7)). Participating jurisdictions are directed to consider signatory practice, what materials are collected in recovery systems, technology state, and competition issues when deciding which materials obligations will cover (clause 9(4)).
• Participating jurisdictions and nominated agency. The framework is implemented by jurisdictions (States, Territories, Commonwealth) which nominate an agency to receive and report data and inspect records (clause 3 nominated agency; clause 16(3), 17(5)). The National Environment Protection Council compiles and publishes national performance from jurisdictional reports (clause 21).

The Measure therefore intertwines voluntary covenant commitments with recommended statutory backstops and an information protocol. It does not itself create criminal offences; instead it mandates that jurisdictions create offences and harmonised penalties (clause 10). It also conditions commencement of auditing and some reporting on the prior agreement and publication of national methodologies and reporting formats (clause 20), creating an implementation sequencing requirement.

The Measure allocates costs, duties and reporting obligations across three principal groups: brand owners, local governments (and their contractors), and participating jurisdictions (including nominated agencies and the Covenant Council). Secondary impacts extend to waste service contractors, retailers, importers, packaging manufacturers and consumers by changing incentives and information flows.

• Brand owners. The Measure contemplates direct obligations on brand owners (clause 9). A brand owner can be a trademark owner, licensee, franchisee, first seller of an import, supplier of in‑store packaging to retailers, or importer/manufacturer/retailer in relation to plastic bags (clause 3 brand owner). Brand owners are the primary target for recovery and utilisation obligations, data recording and retention duties (clause 16). Practically this affects consumer goods manufacturers, importers, large retailers supplying branded in‑store packaging, and any business that performs any of the defined brand owner functions. Brand owners who are Covenant signatories are treated differently: they are exempted or deemed to comply if they are fulfilling their Covenant commitments (clause 11(a)).
• Local government. Local governments that provide kerbside recycling or other municipal materials recovery systems must provide participation, coverage, fee and tonnage data for municipal districts (clause 17(1)-(5)). Local governments must ensure new or novated contracts with recycling contractors require provision of information needed for jurisdictional reporting (clause 17(2)). If existing contracts prevent provision of required information, participating jurisdictions are to take regulatory steps to secure the data (clause 17(3)). Local governments therefore bear reporting obligations and potential administrative costs, and they may be empowered to recover costs from brand owners under the entitlement contemplated in clause 9(6).
• Waste and recycling contractors. Contractors supplying kerbside and drop‑off systems are affected indirectly: local governments must require reporting from contractors via new/novated contracts (clause 17(2)). This can impose contractual data‑reporting obligations on private contractors.
• Consumers. The Measure requires brand owners to take reasonable steps to advise consumers on how packaging is to be recovered (clause 9(2)(d); clause 16(1)(h)). This creates communication duties that may change labelling, point‑of‑sale practice or consumer education efforts.
• Participating jurisdictions and nominated agencies. Each State/Territory/Commonwealth is responsible for implementing statutory protections, for nominating agencies to receive and audit data, for maintaining confidentiality subject to exceptions, and for auditing brand owner records once methodologies are agreed (clauses 9(1), 16(3)-(6), 20, 21). They also design thresholds and methodologies in consultation with the Covenant Council (clause 12). Participating jurisdictions potentially bear enforcement costs (clause 10(4)).
• Covenant Council. The Covenant Council administers the Covenant (registration, action plans, monitoring, discipline and dispute resolution), and provides information to the Commonwealth for national reporting (clause 3 definition Covenant Council; clause 15(2); clause 19). The Measure therefore relies on the Covenant Council for data when brand owners are signatories.

Who pays. The Measure assigns financial burden primarily to brand owners and local governments. Brand owners face the costs of recovery, re‑use/recycling, reporting, record keeping and potential financial penalties for non‑compliance if jurisdictions enact offences (clauses 9, 10, 16). Local governments incur costs in collecting, collating and reporting municipal recovery data and in contracting or regulating to secure contractor reporting (clause 17). Participating jurisdictions incur administrative, audit and enforcement costs (clause 10(4), clause 20).

Who decides. Participating jurisdictions decide which materials are in scope, thresholds for application, audit methodologies, and the form and content of statutory penalties (clauses 9(4), 12, 20, 10(2)). The Covenant Council administers the voluntary Covenant and supplies information to the Commonwealth for national reporting (clauses 5, 15(2), 19).

The Measure sets out recommended duties for participating jurisdictions to impose and the rights and procedural protections that apply in respect of data and enforcement.

Duties that jurisdictions should impose on brand owners (clause 9):

• Undertake or assure systematic recovery of consumer packaging in which the brand owner’s products are sold (clause 9(2)(a)).
• Undertake or assure re‑use, recycling or energy recovery of that packaging (clause 9(2)(b)).
• Demonstrate that recovered materials have been utilised in order of preference: re‑use in the brand owner’s own packaging (if applicable); use within Australia as a secondary resource; or export as a secondary resource (clause 9(2)(c)).
• Demonstrate reasonable steps have been taken to advise consumers how to recover the packaging (clause 9(2)(d)).

Discharge and substitution rights (clause 9(3)): A brand owner can discharge obligations if it undertakes or assures recovery and utilisation of used packaging that is of a size and type substantially the same as its own packaging. This imposes a degree of flexibility, allowing outsourcing or participation in collective recovery schemes that manage materially equivalent packaging.

Exemptions and deemed compliance (clause 11): Covenant signatories fulfilling their Covenant obligations are to be exempted or deemed to comply. Participating jurisdictions may also recognise other industries or sectors where the jurisdiction is satisfied equivalent arrangements exist.

Enforcement and notice (clause 10): Jurisdictions are urged to adopt enforcement models where brand owners are not penalised before being notified of non‑compliance and the options for exemption, and given opportunity to comply (clause 10(1)). Nevertheless, jurisdictions should establish offences with substantial financial penalties for failure to comply after notice (clauses 10(2)-(3)). The Measure specifies consistency in penalties between jurisdictions (clause 10(3)) and calls for allocation of sufficient enforcement resources (clause 10(4)).

Data and recordkeeping duties (clause 16): Brand owners must record, by material type and by financial year, total weight used, units, recovered weight, weight re‑used/recycled in Australia, weight re‑used/recycled through export, energy recovered (kilojoules), weight landfilled, and consumer advice measures (clause 16(1)(a)-(h)). Records must be retained for five years and be available for inspection by the nominated agency (clause 16(3)). Participating jurisdictions must arrange to audit these records (clause 16(4)).

Local government duties (clause 17): Local governments must report coverage, participation rates, number and type of tenements, per tenement recycling fees, total weight of recyclable material collected by material type, and where sorted, weights sent for secondary use and residuals landfilled where practicable (clause 17(1)(a)-(f)). They must ensure contractors provide such information via contracts (clause 17(2)). Where existing contracts prevent this, jurisdictions must take regulatory steps (clause 17(3)).

Confidentiality and disclosure limits (clauses 16(6), 17(4)): Participating jurisdictions must maintain confidentiality of commercially sensitive information but may disclose if brand owner consents, if legally compelled, if information is aggregated to conceal sources, or if in the public interest. This gives a procedural protection while preserving exceptions.

Reporting and interpretive duties (clauses 19, 21): The Commonwealth receives Covenant Council information and participating jurisdictions must supply audited brand owner data, aggregated local government data, survey results, and information on complaints, investigations and prosecutions to the Council for a national statement by 31 December each year (clauses 19-21). Participating jurisdictions must provide a statement of interpretation with their submission; the Council must have regard to each jurisdiction’s interpretation and consult before publishing an interpretation that varies from that provided (clause 21(1)-(3)).

Thresholds and methodology duties (clauses 12, 20): Participating jurisdictions must develop a standard methodology for application thresholds in consultation with the Covenant Council (clause 12). They must not carry out audits or require local government reporting obligations until audit methodologies, national reporting forms and participation rate survey methodologies have been agreed and published (clause 20(1)-(5)). This sequences implementation and creates rights for recipients to rely on published national standards before being required to comply.

Rights of brand owners and local governments include the ability to rely on Covenant signatory status for exemption (clause 11), the right to confidentiality subject to stated exceptions (clauses 16(6), 17(4)), and procedural protections against immediate penalties before notice and opportunity to comply (clause 10(1)).

The Measure itself does not prescribe specific offences or monetary amounts. Instead it sets enforcement design expectations and procedural preconditions for penalties, and reserves to participating jurisdictions the task of enacting offences and enforcement resourcing.

Enforcement principles (clause 10):

• Notice-first principle. Brand owners should not be penalised for failure to discharge obligations unless they have first been notified of the need to comply and the options for exemption, and have failed to comply with that notice (clause 10(1)). This establishes a due process step prior to penalties.
• Substantial financial penalties. Participating jurisdictions are urged to establish offences that carry substantial financial penalties for brand owners who fail to comply with obligations under clause 9(2) after notice (clause 10(2)). The Measure does not define “substantial” or specific penalty levels.
• Consistency. Financial penalties should be consistent among participating jurisdictions (clause 10(3)). The Measure thereby directs harmonisation but leaves the form and quantum of penalties to jurisdictions.
• Resourcing. Jurisdictions should allocate sufficient resources to enforce compliance with the Measure (clause 10(4)). Enforcement effort and capability thus sit as a public cost decision for jurisdictions.

Enforcement mechanics and flows:

• Notification and compliance process. The Measure envisages a staged approach: identification of non‑compliance (whether through Covenant monitoring or jurisdictional audit), provision of notice and options for exemption, then potential prosecution or penalty if non‑compliance persists (clause 10(1); clause 11 note referencing Covenant disciplinary procedures).
• Audits and inspection. Participating jurisdictions must arrange to audit brand owner records under clause 16, and brand owners must make records available to the nominated agency for inspection (clause 16(3)-(4)). However, audits are gated: jurisdictions cannot carry out audits until an audit methodology has been agreed between jurisdictions and published (clause 20(1)).
• Local government enforcement measures. Clause 9(6) envisages that jurisdictions may create an entitlement for local governments or their agents to recover reasonable collection, sorting and return costs from brand owners whose packaging enters materials recovery systems but whose brand owners have not discharged their obligations. This is a mechanism designed to address “free riders” (clause 3 free rider; clause 9(6)). The Measure leaves the procedural and legal means for cost recovery to participating jurisdictions.
• Confidentiality and legal compulsion. Jurisdictions must preserve confidentiality of commercially sensitive information received, but may be compelled to disclose by law, or may aggregate information for publication (clauses 16(6), 17(4)). This interacts with legal compulsion processes, including court orders and potentially freedom of information regimes; the Measure does not itself set discovery or subpoena standards but recognises legal compulsion as an exception.

Implementation risks and enforcement gaps:

• Lack of prescribed penalty quantum creates potential variation between jurisdictions despite clause 10(3)’s harmonisation objective. The Measure relies on jurisdictions to legislate consistent penalties.
• Audits are dependent on agreed methodologies and published forms; until these are in place, audits and some reporting obligations cannot be lawfully or practically imposed (clause 20). This delays enforcement activation.
• The Measure depends heavily on Covenant monitoring and the Covenant Council’s processes to identify non‑complying signatories; the Measure provides a route to refer non‑complying Covenant signatories to jurisdictions via Schedule 3 of the Covenant, which is outside the Measure text (clause 11 note).
• Cost recovery mechanisms for local governments (clause 9(6)) are only envisaged and would require jurisdictions to create statutory or regulatory entitlements; the Measure does not itself create a private right of action.

The Measure is an instrument made under the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 and identical consequential provisions in participating State and Territory Acts (preamble). It is designed as a framework instrument that interacts with, and depends upon, both the voluntary Covenant and jurisdictional law.

Primary statutory relationships:

• Authorising Act and equivalent state/territory Acts. The Measure is made under subsection 14(1) of the Commonwealth NEPC Act and equivalent provisions in participating jurisdictions (preamble). Participating jurisdictions are required to implement the Measure by laws and other arrangements they consider necessary (preamble; clause 7). This makes the Measure dependent on subsequent jurisdictional legislative or regulatory action for enforceable duties.
• Relationship with the Covenant. The Measure explicitly supports and complements the voluntary National Packaging Covenant, and ties statutory obligations to the Covenant’s continuing existence (clauses 5, 11, 13). Clause 13 calls for statutory obligations imposed pursuant to the guidelines to have no effect if the Covenant ceases to be in force. This creates a legal dependency: the Measure’s recommended statutory obligations are contingent on the Covenant’s continuance.
• Confidentiality exceptions and legal compulsion. The confidentiality protections for commercially sensitive information (clauses 16(6) and 17(4)) are subject to legal compulsion. This interacts with court processes and freedom of information laws that apply to participating jurisdictions and their agencies. The Measure does not override those laws but expressly recognises compulsion as an exception to confidentiality promises.
• Contract law and procurement. Clause 17(2) requires local governments to ensure that new or novated contracts with recycling collection contractors require provision of information to satisfy reporting duties. Clause 17(3) requires jurisdictions to take regulatory steps where existing contracts prevent compliance. These provisions interact with public procurement and existing contractual arrangements, potentially requiring novation, contract variation or regulatory intervention.
• Data aggregation and publication. Clause 21 requires participating jurisdictions to supply data in a standard format for a national statement, and clause 21(3) requires consultation before publishing an interpretation that differs from a jurisdiction’s own interpretation. This interacts with state information access, public reporting and possibly privacy or competition law where aggregated data could have market effects.
• Local government charging and cost recovery. Clause 9(6) envisages an entitlement for local governments or their agents to recover reasonable costs from brand owners for collection and sorting where a brand owner has not discharged obligations. Any jurisdictional legislation to implement that entitlement will interact with local government revenue powers and possibly civil recovery procedures.

Implementation sequencing interactions:

• Harmonisation triggers. Clause 20 bars jurisdictions from auditing brand owners or obliging local governments to report until national audit methodologies, reporting forms and participation survey methodologies are agreed and published. This sequencing is a deliberate interaction that requires intergovernmental standard setting before enforcement and reporting obligations commence.
• Registration and definition changes. Clause 2 creates a temporal change in terminology from the National Packaging Covenant to the Australian Packaging Covenant and from the Environmental Code of Practice for Packaging to the Sustainable Packaging Guidelines from 1 July 2010, and clause 3 contains an exception to that substitution. Clause 3 also contains a pre‑ and post‑registration distinction for the consumer packaging definition (clause 3 consumer packaging), meaning references in other laws or programs should align with the Measure’s temporal definitions.

Administrative interactions:

• The Covenant Council provides information to the Commonwealth on request where Covenant signatories have already provided information to the Covenant Council, and jurisdictions must avoid duplicative reporting where possible (clause 15(2)). This distributes administrative burden and creates an information flow between the voluntary regime and government reporting.
• Participating jurisdictions and the Commonwealth must publish agreed methodologies and standard reporting formats; these instruments will interact with jurisdictional administrative law frameworks and may be implemented through subordinate legislation, guidance or agency protocols.

Overall, the Measure is designed to be implemented via a combination of voluntary Covenant activity, jurisdictional legislative measures and agreed national protocols. Its practical legal effect therefore depends on the specifics of subsequent jurisdictional legislation, contract arrangements, national methodologies and the continued operation of the Covenant and Covenant Council.

The instrument text supplied contains its own effective‑date and later‑reference amendments but does not list prior amending instruments. Key temporal and textual changes recorded within the text are as follows.

• Date of instrument and retroactive commencement. The Measure is dated 16 September 2011 (heading) but clause 2(1) states that the Measure is taken to have commenced on 15 July 2005 and will continue subject to review per clause 22. That creates a legal fiction of earlier commencement for the instrument’s application while the formal making date is later. Users should note this explicit commencement direction (clause 2(1)).
• Terminology shift from 1 July 2010. Clause 2(2) instructs that on and after 1 July 2010 references to the National Packaging Covenant are to be treated as references to the Australian Packaging Covenant, and references to the Environmental Code of Practice for Packaging are to be treated as references to the Sustainable Packaging Guidelines, except in clause 3. Clause 3 retains its own definitions and contains its own usage of Covenant and the Sustainable Packaging Guidelines. Practitioners must therefore be careful with cross‑references: the Measure explicitly alters certain names as of 1 July 2010 while preserving clause 3’s definitional regime.
• Review schedule. Clause 22 requires the Measure to be subject to review every five years as part of any comprehensive evaluation of the Covenant. The Measure therefore contains a continuing review obligation built into its lifecycle (clause 22).
• Registration and Federal Register notice. The Measure notes that all legislative instruments and compilations are registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments and provides a pointer to the register (Note). Clause 3 also makes a distinction in the definition of consumer packaging before and after “registration” of this Measure on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. Specifically, before registration consumer packaging has one definition (15 July 2005 until registration), and after registration a slightly different phraseology is used for consumer packaging, predominantly removing the “for the containment, protection, marketing and handling of retail consumer products” wording in favour of “for the containment, protection, marketing or handling of consumer products” (clause 3 consumer packaging). This transitional definition must be applied according to the Measure’s registration status.

No further textual amendment schedule is contained in this instrument beyond the review mechanism and the temporal terminological substitution. The Measure does not itself reproduce subsequent amending instruments or legislative history beyond the internal references above. Practitioners should consult the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments and participating jurisdictions for any subordinate instruments, published methodologies, audit standards, reporting forms, or jurisdictional legislation implementing the Measure’s guidelines and obligations as those are the mechanisms by which the Measure’s non‑self‑executing guidance becomes legally enforceable.

The Measure text as supplied does not record any judicial or tribunal proceedings, nor does it cite case law. It includes no schedule of litigation or judicial interpretation. The instrument refers to the Covenant’s own monitoring, disciplinary and dispute resolution procedures and to the process for referring non‑complying signatories to jurisdictions as contained in Schedule 3 of the Covenant (clause 11 note), but that is an internal reference to the Covenant document and not to any judicial outcome.

Given the Measure’s design , recommending that participating jurisdictions enact offences, thresholds and auditing mechanisms , any litigation arising from enforcement, data disclosure, confidentiality disputes, or cost recovery claims would likely occur under the subsequent jurisdictional legislation or arising from contractual disputes with contractors and would therefore appear in the case law of the relevant State or Territory rather than in this Measure. The Measure itself contains no record of such cases.

Users seeking litigation history should consult:

• jurisdictional legislation that implements the Measure (to identify any prosecutions or civil enforcement actions commenced under those provisions), and
• published tribunal and court decisions in the relevant State or Territory courts and federal courts concerning enforcement of packaging recovery obligations, disclosure of confidential information supplied under clause 16/17, or cost recovery claims by local governments under clauses implemented pursuant to clause 9(6).

As the instrument contains requirements that jurisdictions adopt enforcement provisions and audit methodologies, post‑enactment litigation (if any) will emerge in the implementing jurisdictional legal record rather than in the Measure text.

The Measure contains several potential implementation traps, sequencing constraints and definitional nuances that can catch practitioners if not carefully attended to.

1. Retroactive commencement and registration‑dependent definitions. The Measure is dated 16 September 2011 yet is taken to have commenced on 15 July 2005 (clause 2(1)). Also, the consumer packaging definition differs before and after “registration” on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (clause 3 consumer packaging). This can create confusion when mapping obligations against business activities across time. Check the registration status and apply the correct definition for the relevant reporting year.

2. Dependence on the Covenant. The Measure is explicitly scaffolded on the voluntary Covenant. Clause 13 states that statutory obligations should have no effect if the Covenant ceases to be in force. Consequently, the legal force of any jurisdictional obligations enacted under these guidelines is conditional on the Covenant’s continuance. This dependency can undermine regulatory certainty if the Covenant’s status changes.

3. Exemptions and deemed compliance create strategic incentives. Covenant signatories are exempted or deemed to comply if they fulfil Covenant obligations (clause 11(a)). This gives a clear incentive to join the Covenant. Conversely, non‑signatory “free riders” are identified in the Measure and jurisdictions may operate cost recovery measures against them (clause 9(6)). The line between “equivalent outcomes” and non‑equivalent will be fact‑dependent and left to jurisdictions.

4. Audits and reporting are gated. Audits of brand owner records and many local government reporting obligations cannot be required until specified national audit methodologies, reporting forms and participation survey methods are agreed and published (clause 20(1)-(5)). This means enforcement cannot be effective until intergovernmental technical standards are finalised.

5. Undefined penalty quantum. The Measure directs jurisdictions to implement “substantial financial penalties” but does not quantify them (clause 10(2)). Clause 10(3) calls for consistency among jurisdictions, but absent a prescribed quantum this invites divergence in practice. Practitioners should check the actual statutory instruments enacted in their jurisdiction.

6. Confidentiality exceptions and aggregation risks. While the Measure provides a confidentiality regime for commercially sensitive data (clauses 16(6), 17(4)), aggregated publication is permitted. If aggregation is insufficiently anonymising, identifiable or near‑identifiable company data could be inferred. Also, disclosure is permitted if legally compelled or in the public interest.

7. Definition of “material”. The Measure clarifies that “material” excludes incidental components such as labels and closures (clause 16(7)). This exclusion can materially affect recovery rate calculations and reporting obligations since weights reported should exclude those incidental components.

8. Brand owner definition includes retailers for certain products. The brand owner definition captures retailers for plastic bags and suppliers of in‑store packaging (clause 3). Retailers may therefore find they are considered brand owners for specific packaging types and may be caught by obligations and reporting duties they did not anticipate.

9. Local government contract constraints. Clause 17(3) instructs jurisdictions to take regulatory steps where existing contracts prevent required data being supplied. Owners and contractors under pre‑existing contracts should expect potential regulatory intervention or necessity to novate/renegotiate contracts to comply.

10. No private right of action in the Measure itself. The Measure contemplates local government entitlements to recover costs from brand owners (clause 9(6)) but does not itself create a private statutory right of recovery. Any cost recovery mechanism requires implementing jurisdictional law.

11. Relationship with other legal compulsion. Confidentiality protections are subject to legal compulsion, which interacts with court discovery, information notices and freedom of information regimes. Commercially sensitive information provided to jurisdictions is not absolutely protected.

12. Enforcement resource requirement. Clause 10(4) directs jurisdictions to allocate sufficient resources for enforcement. In practice, resource constraints at jurisdictional level can delay audits, prosecutions or cost recovery, leaving compliance dependent on voluntary Covenant monitoring.

13. Recovery rate formula present but not textualised. Clause 16(2) contains the recovery rate formula as an image in the instrument supplied. Practitioners must consult the original instrument or jurisdictional guidance to confirm the precise arithmetic and units to be used.

In short, the Measure creates a multi‑actor, multi‑stage system that requires careful attention to timing, definitional details and the interplay between voluntary Covenant arrangements and jurisdictional law. Practitioners should map obligations across the specific reporting year, confirm whether national methodologies and forms have been published, and review implementing legislation and contractual arrangements.

Compliance responsibility is shared among brand owners, local governments, and participating jurisdictions. The steps below translate the Measure’s requirements into practical actions that responsible entities should follow.

For brand owners

1. Determine status. Identify whether you qualify as a brand owner under clause 3(1) for the products and packaging you market, supply or import. This includes trademark owners, importers who are first sellers, franchisees, suppliers of in‑store packaging and, for plastic bags, retailers or importers.
2. Covenant signatory decision. Decide whether to become a Covenant signatory. Covenant signatories are exempted or deemed to comply where they fulfil Covenant commitments (clause 11). Weigh the costs of Covenant membership against the compliance, reporting and potential penalty exposure if not a signatory.
3. Record keeping. Maintain the following data by material type for each financial year as required by clause 16(1): total weight used; number of units by unit and material type; total weight recovered; total weight re‑used/recycled in Australia; total weight re‑used/recycled through export; total kilojoules of embedded energy recovered; total weight disposed to landfill; and how consumers have been advised of recovery methods. Retain records for five years and prepare to make them available to the nominated agency on request (clause 16(3)(a)-(b)).
4. Recovery rate calculation. Calculate the recovery rate using the Measure’s formula in clause 16(2). Confirm the precise arithmetic, units and rounding requirements with the jurisdictional guidance or national methodology once published (clause 20(1)).
5. Supply consumer advice. Implement and document reasonable steps taken to advise consumers how packaging is to be recovered; keep evidence of communications, labelling and education campaigns (clause 9(2)(d); clause 16(1)(h)).
6. Arrange recovery assurance. If you do not operate your own recovery system, put in place contractual assurances or third‑party arrangements that allow you to demonstrate recovery and utilisation of materially equivalent packaging (clause 9(3)). Ensure contracts with reclamation or recycling partners include data sharing to enable audit and reporting.
7. Confidentiality protections. Where you provide commercially sensitive information, be aware that jurisdictions will maintain confidentiality unless aggregated, legally compelled or in public interest (clause 16(6)). Keep confidentiality agreements and be prepared for requests for aggregated publication.
8. Compliance process. If notified of non‑compliance, engage promptly and consider options for exemption or remedial action under the Covenant or the jurisdictional procedure referenced in clause 10(1). Document remedial steps to demonstrate responsiveness to any notice.
9. Prepare for audit. Ensure systems for data collection, internal audit and third‑party verification are in place given that jurisdictions will arrange audits once national methodologies are agreed (clause 16(4), clause 20).

For local governments

1. Data systems. Build or adapt systems to collect and collate data required under clause 17(1): percentage household coverage, participation rates, number and type of tenements, per tenement recycling fee, total weight of recyclable material by material type, and sorted material sale/use weights and residual landfilled weights where practicable.
2. Contract clauses. Ensure new or novated contracts with recycling collection service providers require suppliers to provide the necessary information to support local government reporting (clause 17(2)). Review existing contracts to identify provisions that prevent reporting and notify the jurisdiction early so regulatory steps can be taken where necessary (clause 17(3)).
3. Confidentiality. Understand how commercially sensitive data will be treated; be prepared to provide aggregated data and supply redacted or aggregated submissions where appropriate (clause 17(4)).
4. Reporting schedules. Submit required municipal data to the nominated agency within the timeframe agreed by jurisdictions after the end of the financial year (clause 17(5)). Confirm the national reporting form and timeline with the nominated agency once published.
5. Interaction with cost recovery measures. Where permitted by jurisdictional law, prepare to identify packaging associated with non‑complying brand owners and the costs of collection, sorting and return for potential recovery under a jurisdictional entitlement contemplated in clause 9(6).

For participating jurisdictions and nominated agencies

1. Legislative implementation. Enact statutory bases to ensure Covenant signatories are not competitively disadvantaged for fulfilling Covenant commitments, and impose obligations on brand owners consistent with clause 9(1) and clause 9(2). Ensure implementing legislation is consistent with clause 13 so obligations are conditional upon the Covenant where required.
2. Thresholds and methodologies. Develop national application threshold methodology in consultation with the Covenant Council (clause 12). Agree and publish audit methodologies, a national reporting form, and a national standard participation rate survey methodology before requiring audits or imposing local government reporting obligations (clause 20).
3. Audit capacity and resources. Allocate sufficient enforcement and audit resources to carry out inspections, audits and, if necessary, prosecutions (clause 10(4)). Establish nominated agencies capable of receiving data, conducting inspections and providing aggregated returns to the Council (clause 16(3), 21).
4. Confidentiality protocols. Establish protocols for handling commercially sensitive data, including aggregation rules that preserve anonymity and procedures for legal compulsion responses (clauses 16(6), 17(4)). Document and publish these protocols where appropriate to provide certainty to data providers.
5. Cost recovery frameworks. If implementing the entitlement contemplated in clause 9(6), enact clear statutory frameworks that set scope, calculation of “reasonable costs,” procedural notice and recovery mechanisms to allow local governments to recover collection and sorting costs from non‑complying brand owners. Ensure compatibility with existing local government revenue arrangements and public finance law.
6. Reporting to Council. Collate audited brand owner data, aggregated local government data, survey results and enforcement information and supply a standard‑format annual report to the Council by 31 December for the previous financial year (clause 21(1)). Include a statement of interpretation and engage the Council if the Council proposes to publish an interpretation different from the jurisdiction’s submission (clause 21(2)-(3)).
7. Review obligations. Conduct reviews of the Measure as required every five years in the context of Covenant evaluations (clause 22) and use review outputs to adjust thresholds, methodologies and enforcement approaches.

For the Covenant Council

1. Data sharing. When Covenant signatories have provided information to the Covenant Council, be prepared to supply that information to the Commonwealth on request subject to confidentiality considerations (clause 15(2), clause 19).
2. Monitoring and discipline. Implement monitoring, disciplinary and dispute resolution procedures and establish a clear process for referring non‑complying signatories to jurisdictions as contemplated by clause 11 and the Covenant’s Schedule 3.

Cross‑actor practicalities

• Check national methodologies and reporting forms before submitting or auditing data as the Measure disallows mandatory audits and some reporting until those materials are published (clause 20).
• Implement clear documentation and audit trails for recovery and utilisation claims, including contracts with recyclers and evidence of secondary‑use markets or export channels, because these will be inspected by the nominated agency and audited (clause 16(3)-(4)).
• When in doubt about whether packaging qualifies as a “material” for reporting, apply the Measure’s “principal component” test excluding labels and closures (clause 16(7)).
• Keep abreast of jurisdictional legislation implementing clause 9(6) style cost recovery entitlements, and of penalty regimes enacted under clause 10, because these will determine the concrete legal and financial exposure to non‑compliance.

Compliance therefore requires mapping internal data systems to the Measure’s record components, tracking implementation of national methodologies and forms, evaluating whether to join the Covenant, securing contractual data flows from service providers, and engaging with nominated agencies and jurisdictions early to limit timing and scope surprises.