This bill became law on Jun 28th, 2023.
Budget, tax & economy
Imported petroleum-based oils and synthetic equivalents covered by this law now attract customs duty of 14.2 cents per litre or kilogram instead of 8.5 cents, lifting the oil stewardship levy at the border.
The oil stewardship scheme had run a deficit for more than four years because recycler benefit payments outstripped duty revenue as higher-quality recycled oils earned bigger payments while levy rates stayed static. This bill raises the customs levy on relevant imported oils from 8.5 to 14.2 cents to restore the scheme’s self-funding balance.
Australia’s Product Stewardship for Oil schemeThe levy-and-benefit system that funds used-oil recycling in Australia by charging oil imports and paying recyclers for eligible output. was set up under the Product Stewardship (Oil) Act 2000The law that created the oil recycling scheme and set out what kinds of oil and payments it covers. and began in 2001 to fund used-oil recycling by collecting duty from refiners and importers, but by 2023 it had been running at a deficit for more than four years as higher-quality recycled oils attracted larger benefit payments while levy rates stayed unchanged. The bill responded by lifting the customs levy on relevant imported oils from 8.5 to 14.2 cents per litre or kilogram, Parliament passed it in June 2023, and the higher rate took effect from 1 July 2023 to help restore the scheme’s intended self-funding balance.
The main reservation was that the bill mostly just raises the levy and should be judged on whether it actually fixes the scheme deficit without causing unintended costs or other side effects. That concern was limited rather than broad: the Coalition still supported the bill while flagging future scrutiny, and the Greens pressed unsuccessfully for wider product stewardship reforms.
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP introduced this bill. It passed on the voicesA quick parliamentary vote where the result is decided by members saying yes or no, rather than by a formal count..
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 28 June 2023
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
Members called out ‘aye’ or ‘no’ — no individual votes were recorded.
Passage speed
34 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Imported petroleum-based oils and synthetic equivalents covered by this law now attract customs duty of 14.2 cents per litre or kilogram instead of 8.5 cents, lifting the oil stewardship levy at the border.
The higher levy applies across all the main customs tariff classificationsThe customs code numbers used to classify imported goods, which decide whether the higher oil levy applies. used for these oils, so importers pay the new 14.2 cent rate whether the product is measured by litre or by kilogram.
Concessional and free-trade-agreement import rates for the same oil products are also updated, so discounted customs categories still carry the higher 14.2 cent levy amount.
Most of the new customs rates apply from 1 July 2023, and they can also catch goods imported before then if customs had not yet worked out the duty by that date.
The purpose of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2023 (the Bill) is to amend the Customs Tariff Act to increase the specific rate of customs duty imposed on the import of the relevant goods from 8.5 cents per kilogram or litre (as the case may be) to 14.2 cents per kilogram or litre (as the case may be). This is intended to return the PSO Scheme to fiscal neutrality.Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) explanatory memorandum
The types of oil defined in the PSO Act fall under 16 tariff subheadings and 1 heading in the Customs Tariff Act. The Bill would amend all references to the previous levy rate (applied as a specific customs duty) across the Customs Tariff Act for those classifications to increase the levy to 14.2 cents per litre or kilogram, as applicable. Where the goods are subject to a compound customs duty of a percentage of the value of the goods (ad valorem duty) plus the levy, the ad valorem duty component of the duty is retained and the levy is increased.Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) explanatory memorandum
These items would amend Schedules 4A to 14 to the Customs Tariff Act, replacing references to ‘$0.085/L’ and ‘$0.085/kg’ with ‘$0.142/L’ and ‘$0.142/kg’, respectively. Column 1 of Table 3 sets out the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act concerned and column 2 of Table 3 sets out the table items of the corresponding Schedule that would be amended.Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) explanatory memorandum
This item would provide that the amendments made by Schedule 1 to this Bill apply in relation to: goods imported into Australia on or after 1 July 2023; and goods imported into Australia before 1 July 2023, where the time for working out the rate of import duty on the goods had not occurred before that day.Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia’s Product Stewardship for Oil schemeThe levy-and-benefit system that funds used-oil recycling in Australia by charging oil imports and paying recyclers for eligible output. was set up under the Product Stewardship (Oil) Act 2000The law that created the oil recycling scheme and set out what kinds of oil and payments it covers. and began in 2001 to fund used-oil recycling by collecting duty from refiners and importers, but by 2023 it had been running at a deficit for more than four years as higher-quality recycled oils attracted larger benefit payments while levy rates stayed unchanged. The bill responded by lifting the customs levy on relevant imported oils from 8.5 to 14.2 cents per litre or kilogram, Parliament passed it in June 2023, and the higher rate took effect from 1 July 2023 to help restore the scheme’s intended self-funding balance.
Parliament creates the Product Stewardship for Oil schemeThe levy-and-benefit system that funds used-oil recycling in Australia by charging oil imports and paying recyclers for eligible output.
The Product Stewardship (Oil) Act 2000The law that created the oil recycling scheme and set out what kinds of oil and payments it covers. established a levy-and-benefit scheme to encourage used-oil recycling and re-refining in Australia.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) explanatory memorandum ↗The oil recycling scheme begins operating
A later parliamentary speech said no oil recycling was being undertaken in Australia when the scheme commenced operation in 2001.
Hansard ↗A long-running scheme deficit forces a levy reset
The explanatory memorandum said the scheme had been in deficit for more than four years because higher-quality recycled oils earned larger benefit payments while customs and excise duty rates remained static.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) explanatory memorandum ↗Government introduces a bill to lift the customs oil levy
The minister said the bill would raise the customs duty on relevant imported oils from 8.5 to 14.2 cents per litre or kilogram to bring the scheme back to fiscal neutralityThe scheme’s target state where duty collected from oil roughly covers the benefit payments made to recyclers..
Hansard ↗Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. clears the way for the higher levy
After passing both Houses on 22 June 2023, the bill received Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. and became law ahead of its scheduled commencement.
Parliamentary timeline ↗The higher 14.2 cent levy starts applying at the border
The explanatory memorandum states the customs tariff amendments commenced on 1 July 2023, applying the higher levy rate to covered imported oils.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) explanatory memorandum ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (25/05/2023): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (13/06/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main reservation was that the bill mostly just raises the levy and should be judged on whether it actually fixes the scheme deficit without causing unintended costs or other side effects. That concern was limited rather than broad: the Coalition still supported the bill while flagging future scrutiny, and the Greens pressed unsuccessfully for wider product stewardship reforms.
No party represented in the debate opposed the bill outright.
May need review if the higher levy has unintended effects
The clearest criticism was not of the scheme’s goal but of implementation risk: lifting the levy should be monitored to make sure it really restores the scheme’s finances and does not create unintended consequences for affected users or the market.
Too narrow compared with broader stewardship reform
A separate criticism was that simply increasing the oil levy did not go far enough on product stewardship policy, with a push for broader national design standards and targets rather than a levy change alone.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voicesA quick parliamentary vote where the result is decided by members saying yes or no, rather than by a formal count., so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voicesA quick parliamentary vote where the result is decided by members saying yes or no, rather than by a formal count., so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
Senate
Senator Whish-Wilson’s second-reading proposal, decided on voicesA quick parliamentary vote where the result is decided by members saying yes or no, rather than by a formal count., would have called on the government to support mandatory design standards and national targets for product stewardship schemes.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate Journal records this outcome as defeated on voicesA quick parliamentary vote where the result is decided by members saying yes or no, rather than by a formal count..
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Plibersek supports the bill, saying it will restore the Product Stewardship for Oil SchemeThe levy-and-benefit system that funds used-oil recycling in Australia by charging oil imports and paying recyclers for eligible output. to fiscal neutralityThe scheme’s target state where duty collected from oil roughly covers the benefit payments made to recyclers. and fix a long-running deficit.
Read in Hansard ↗Ted O'Brien says the coalition will support the bill, because the product stewardship scheme has worked well and the cost recovery arrangements now need to be put back on a sustainable footing.
Read in Hansard ↗Mitchell supports the bill, saying it fixes a persistent deficit in the oil stewardship scheme by raising duties so the costs of recycling oil are paid by users rather than taxpayers.
Read in Hansard ↗Malarndirri McCarthy supports the bill, saying it will fix the Product Stewardship for Oil schemeThe levy-and-benefit system that funds used-oil recycling in Australia by charging oil imports and paying recyclers for eligible output.’s long-running deficit and restore the arrangement so taxpayers no longer cover the shortfall.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
3 speakers · 4 contributions · 3 support
“I rise today in support of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2023 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2023. These bills aims to rectify the persistent deficit and ensure that the costs of recycling oil are appropriately borne by its users.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The passage of this bill will see this long-running deficit remedied. No longer will taxpayers pay for the scheme's shortfall.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Tanya Plibersek on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Plibersek supports the bill, saying it will restore the Product Stewardship for Oil SchemeThe levy-and-benefit system that funds used-oil recycling in Australia by charging oil imports and paying recyclers for eligible output. to fiscal neutralityThe scheme’s target state where duty collected from oil roughly covers the benefit payments made to recyclers. and fix a long-running deficit. She argues the change is fair, protects the recycling scheme, and will have only a very small impact on oil users.
“The passage of these two bills will remedy that long-running deficit.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Plibersek supports the bill and says it will keep used-oil stewardship funded by the people who use the oil rather than taxpayers. She argues the change is important for protecting soils and waterways and for supporting Australia's oil recycling sector.
“I'd like to thank those who have contributed to the debate on both bills, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2023 and the Excise Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2023. These two pieces of legislation will ensure the environmentally sustainable management of used oil is funded by those who benefit from the use of that oil. They will do this by ensuring the customs and excise tariffs collected on relevant oils are sufficient to fund their end-of-life management costs, reducing the burden on taxpayers. This will have a minor impact on oil users, with the cost of an oil change for an average car rising by about 28 cents.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“Given that these bills were introduced only last Thursday, we will, for now, take at face value the government's claims that the levy increase to 14.2 cents per litre or kilo will return to 139 million to balance—or very nearly balance—the recent losses. Obviously, if the changes in the bill don't deliver the expected outcomes and/or result in unintended consequences, then we will seek to revisit this matter.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (13/06/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (25 May 2023): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (13 June 2023)
APH bill page notes
