With a Commonwealth packaging scheme ruled out this term, pressure is building ahead of the 18 September Environment Ministers Meeting, as industry, recyclers and environmental groups demand clarity on what meaningful national reform can still be delivered – and when.
Rather than quietening calls for reform, the government’s decision appears to have galvanised those who have spent years pressing for change.
At the centre of the latest push, the Boomerang Alliance, a national network of environmental organisations, has launched what it describes as Australia’s largest packaging reform call to action to date.
From Monday to Thursday (17 September) this week, supporters of the alliance are being urged to telephone federal, state and territory environment ministers and email their local MPs, calling on governments to hold the line on packaging reform.
The campaign is demanding a mandatory producer responsibility scheme for packaging with enforceable targets; new rules to eliminate harmful chemicals from packaging; and an immediate, nationally consistent, producer-funded collection and recovery service for soft plastics.
Its message is unequivocal: the Commonwealth should not be allowed to walk away from the reform process it set in motion.
The campaign reflects a refusal to let years of consultation and advocacy end in quiet acquiescence. It is not surprising that the government’s decision has disappointed those who have contributed to consultations, invested in recycling infrastructure or prepared for new packaging obligations. What is now emerging is the breadth and persistence of the opposition to it.
The issue has also moved beyond the specialist packaging, recycling and environmental media. In a report published at the weekend, The Guardian described an unprecedented “scale and breadth of outrage” following the government’s decision. Echoing PKN’s earlier reporting, the article brought together voices from the Boomerang Alliance, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation and Australian Council of Recycling.
For those of us who have followed this policy process closely since 2023, it is encouraging to see the implications of the decision receiving mainstream attention. Packaging reform is not an isolated industry issue. It affects council and household waste costs, recycling investment, manufacturing capability, litter and pollution, as well as the ability of packaging businesses to plan with certainty.
The Guardian report also repeated the government’s cost-of-living rationale. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water told stakeholders that a new Commonwealth packaging scheme would not be introduced this term because the government was seeking to avoid exacerbating cost-of-living pressures.
Environment Minister Murray Watt said the immediate focus would be on working with states and territories to harmonise packaging and recycling policy, while balancing environmental outcomes with costs to consumers and industry.
That leaves Friday’s meeting carrying considerable weight. If a Commonwealth scheme is off the table for this term, environment ministers will be expected to explain what nationally consistent and meaningful action can still be delivered – and when.
Public pressure builds
The Boomerang Alliance has reinforced its campaign with new polling that it says demonstrates broad public concern about plastic packaging and its potential environmental and health effects.
The YouGov survey of 1504 Australian voters, conducted from 1–8 September, found that 87 per cent agreed that the Australian Government had a responsibility to introduce policies to reduce the health and environmental risks associated with plastic packaging.
It also found that 78 per cent were concerned about the potential effect of plastic pollution on their own health and that of their families. Asked how quickly governments should introduce binding policies to address plastic pollution, 43 per cent said within the next year and 27 per cent said within two to three years.
The Boomerang Alliance says the findings were consistent among voters aligned with Labor, the Coalition, the Greens and One Nation.
Alliance director Jeff Angel argues that the government has underestimated the likely political response if plastic recycling capacity continues to decline while public concern about pollution and health remains high.
“At the same time the plastic recycling sector is under threat of collapse because our current recyclate collections are too small and recycled content not mandated,” Angel said.
“You can imagine the community outrage if more plastic recyclers collapse.”
The health claims associated with chemicals and microplastics will continue to require careful examination as the science develops. What the polling released by the Boomerang Alliance demonstrates more immediately is that the public expects government to act and does not regard packaging policy as an issue that can be deferred indefinitely.
Alignment holds
The latest campaign follows the joint call issued by APCO, ACOR and the Boomerang Alliance for a nationally consistent extended producer responsibility framework.
As PKN has pointed out previously, the significance of this alignment remains difficult to dismiss. APCO represents the existing packaging co-regulatory system, ACOR represents the recycling sector, and the Boomerang Alliance brings together environmental organisations. They approach packaging reform from different positions, but agree that Australia needs nationally consistent producer responsibilities, measurable targets and investment certainty.
That agreement also cuts across any suggestion that mandatory reform is being sought by activists alone. Packaging producers want regulatory certainty. Recyclers need secure material flows, demand for recycled content and confidence to invest. Environmental groups want measurable reductions in waste and pollution. Councils and households want the cost burden distributed more fairly.
There will, of course, be disagreement over the design, governance and cost of an EPR scheme. Those questions need detailed scrutiny. But the continuing alignment around the need for a mandatory national framework shows that the fundamental case for reform has not weakened.
If anything, the response of the past two weeks suggests the government’s decision has strengthened the resolve of those advocating for it.
Friday’s meeting gives environment ministers an opportunity to demonstrate that the years of consultation and consensus-building have not been set aside.
