Following the voluntary administration of Recycling Plastics Australia and confirmation that no Commonwealth packaging scheme will be introduced this term, voices from across the packaging and recycling value chain have delivered a blunt assessment of what is at stake.
Disappointment and frustration are resounding across the industry. They are shared by recyclers who have invested in infrastructure, businesses that prepared for new obligations, associations that contributed years of expertise, environmental groups that continued to press for action – and everyone, including this writer, who believed the long reform process was leading somewhere.
Since Tanya Plibersek, then federal environment minister, announced in 2023 that the Federal Government intended to reform packaging regulation, industry has participated in consultations, commissioned research, developed models and invested in infrastructure in the expectation that definitive change would follow.
Instead, two developments within days of each other sharply intensified industry concern. Recycling Plastics Australia entered voluntary administration, placing about 60 Adelaide jobs and domestic plastics-processing capacity at risk. The government then confirmed that no new Commonwealth packaging scheme would be introduced during its current term.
The responses collected here differ in emphasis, but several themes recur: the cost of policy uncertainty, the fragility of recycling economics, the limits of voluntary action and the need for a nationally consistent system. They place on the record the consequences of years of consultation without a clear path forward.
THE DECISION
The words that changed the tenor of the packaging reform discussion appeared in correspondence sent to participants in the government’s consultation on the proposed Design for Kerbside Recyclability Grading Framework.
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water issued a statement to participants in the consultation process: “The Minister has communicated that a new Commonwealth scheme for packaging will not be introduced in this term of Government.”
The department said the government would instead work with state and territory governments on nearer-term opportunities to improve packaging regulation and policy. It is also considering how the updated recyclability grading framework might be used within the existing co-regulatory arrangements, but no decision has been made on its application.
For stakeholders who had contributed to more than 65 interviews during the latest consultation alone, the notification compounded frustration that extensive engagement had again ended without a defined national pathway.
THE REACTION
Industry reaction was swift. For recycling businesses, the policy debate is inseparable from the viability of facilities already operating or built with government support. Pact Group chair Raphael Geminder placed responsibility for the present conditions squarely on policy settings.
“This is not a technology failure. It is a policy failure. The Australian Government banned the export of plastic waste and funded plastic recycling plants to the tune of $137 million, but it then failed to create the market conditions needed to make the recycling plants viable.”
“The decision to delay national packaging reform risks wasting taxpayer investment, undermining local recycling jobs and locking Australia into a landfill-first plastic waste solution at the exact moment it should be building sovereign recycling and manufacturing capability.”
THE FALLOUT
Australian Council of Recycling CEO Suzanne Toumbourou said RPA’s administration followed more than a year of warnings about the financial position of plastics recyclers.
“For over a year, we have been very clear that the viability of Australia’s plastic recycling sector – particularly those managing plastic packaging – is on an unsustainable trajectory.”
“It is devastating to be watching this slow-moving crisis materialise, and baffling that the government would not move to support not only this industry, but this important, government co-funded sovereign capability. This is particularly concerning given the government has also banned the export of plastic waste, which means we must have the capacity to recycle it here.”
Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia CEO Gayle Sloan argued that the conditions facing recyclers were built into the present system.
“Recyclers invest millions in Australian facilities and jobs, process an ever-growing volume of plastic and compete against cheap virgin and imported recycled materials. Meanwhile, producers can place low-value, poorly designed packaging on the Australian market without funding its recovery or using the recycled materials created. That is not a circular economy. It is an economic regime designed to make Australian recycling fail.”
“We need an economic regime that recognises the true cost of packaging, rewards Australian recovery and remanufacturing, and stops penalising the recyclers doing the work.”
THE COST
The government has said it is pursuing reform in a way that balances environmental outcomes with the needs of the economy and does not exacerbate cost-of-living pressures. Several industry voices have challenged that reasoning, arguing that the fragmented system already imposes costs while failing to secure recovery outcomes.
Barry Cosier, CEO, Soft Plastic Stewardship Australia, said: “The irony of the rationale cannot be overstated. After six years of repeated and duplicated packaging consultations, around $40 million in recycling grant funds being returned without recycling a tonne, and duplicated single-use plastic and container deposit schemes that all add cost, suddenly cost is an issue.”
“Reform can drive Australia’s efficiency, productivity and resilience.”
Cosier said these economic benefits had been overlooked in the government’s consideration of EPR.
MRA Consulting managing director Mike Ritchie also challenged the cost-of-living rationale. In a letter to the department seen by PKN, he argued that reform would produce savings across kerbside collection, recycling efficiency, landfill disposal, packaging labelling, council waste charges and litter management.
“Modelling done by APCO and MRA shows a properly run scheme would cost consumers about 0.3 cents per packaging item or 20 cents on an average weekly shop (60 items) directly and virtually nothing once indirect savings are included,” Richie said.
Ritchie said the net cost to the economy would be “zero or very low”, depending on the scheme’s ambitions for recycled content, landfill diversion and litter reduction.
He maintained that without a regulatory impact statement, the government could not properly assess the relative costs and benefits of reform.
THE SYSTEM
BioPak founder Richard Fine said the administration of RPA had intensified the case for reform, but argued that building more processing capacity was only part of the answer.
“Our packaging problem is not simply a shortage of recycling technology. It is our failure to build complete recovery systems around that technology.”
“We have confused recyclable with recycled for too long.”
Fine said policy had focused on whether packaging was technically recyclable rather than whether it was collected, sorted and processed, and whether a viable market existed for the recovered material. A recycling facility needed reliable feedstock, customers willing to buy its output, the ability to compete with virgin plastic and imported recycled resin, and enough certainty to justify long-term investment. Government grants could help construct facilities, he said, but could not create the complete recovery system.
“Australia needs a mandatory, nationally harmonised extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging. However, introducing EPR is only part of the answer. Its design will determine whether it creates genuine circularity or simply gives us a more elaborate system for measuring failure.”
THE PATH FORWARD
The breadth of agreement behind extended producer responsibility was demonstrated when APCO, ACOR and the Boomerang Alliance issued a joint call for a published pathway and timetable for national packaging reform. The position brought together the organisation administering the current co-regulatory framework, the recycling industry and the environmental movement.
Adding the voice of beverage manufacturers, Australian Beverages Council Limited (ABCL) CEO Geoff Parker said the immediate priority was to prevent further state-by-state fragmentation.
“In the absence of national regulations, it is critical that state and territory governments work even more collaboratively to ensure that any proposed reforms are consistent across state borders and provide the surety for industry to continue investing in Australian manufacturing.”
The ABCL also called on the Federal Government to reconsider its decision and commit to a nationally consistent EPR scheme.
Chris Foley, CEO, Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation: “Australia needs certainty on packaging reform. A national EPR approach can give producers clear rules, unlock investment in recycling, and replace fragmented approaches with a more consistent system.”
Jeff Angel, director, Boomerang Alliance: “Australians want the companies that put packaging on the market to pay for cleaning it up – not councils, not ratepayers and not the environment.”
One Planet Consulting CEO Helen Millicer urged industry to maintain a united position despite the setback.
“We cannot lose hope. We must use this period to speak more clearly and with a united voice for EPR regulation.”
In an earlier PKN interview following six months of research into European EPR systems, Millicer contrasted their coordination with Australia’s fragmented mix of state regulation and voluntary arrangements. She identified the National EPA as a potential regulator for a framework covering imported and locally manufactured packaging, with one regulator and one set of rules.
Catalyst founder and CEO Brooke Donnelly agreed that regulation was needed to establish a level playing field, minimum standards and accountability, but argued that industry must remain closely involved in designing workable models.
“Rather than simply telling government that Australia needs extended producer responsibility, industry should be developing EPR models that are commercially viable, measurable and capable of delivering genuine environmental outcomes.”
“Industry can demonstrate what works in practice, while government can provide the regulatory certainty needed to ensure consistency, accountability and scale.”
THE CASE ALREADY MADE
The latest reaction followed months of published commentary in which PKN contributors identified weaknesses in the existing system and set out what mandatory reform should address. Here's a selection:
Elliot Costello, co-founder and CEO, Phantm: “One national framework, one reporting system, one fee schedule, and one clear set of obligations for producers across Australia.”
Packaging reform: one country, one system
Daniel Malki, general manager, Jet Technologies: “Australia doesn’t have a recycling problem, it has a utilisation problem. We’ve seen investment in recycling infrastructure, but without strong end-market demand and the capability to use those materials effectively, the system can’t function as intended.”
Packaging levy could be turning point for real reform
Flavia Vaz, corporate affairs director, Oceania, Japan and Korea, Tetra Pak: “Industry can continue operating within the current framework, but that framework is not capable of delivering the transformation we have collectively committed to.”
Packaging reform must align with food security
Jano Crema, PR and sustainability manager, Huhtamaki ANZ: “Designing packaging for recovery is essential. Ensuring it is actually recovered is something else entirely.”
Reform the system – not just the pack
THE RECORD
These voices do not suggest that packaging reform will be simple or cost-free. They argue that continued uncertainty already carries a cost, borne by recycling facilities, workers, councils, consumers and the sovereign capability that governments have helped fund.
Nor do the contributors propose an identical model in every detail. Their points of alignment are nevertheless substantial: voluntary stewardship has reached its limit, responsibility must be more evenly allocated, local end markets need support, and national consistency is essential for investment.
The breadth of agreement across recyclers, packaging producers, industry bodies, consultants and environmental advocates shows how far the discussion has moved. What remains uncertain is whether governments are prepared to move with it.
PKN will keep listening, asking questions and reporting what follows. For now, this is where the industry stands – on the record.
