A major new report argues Australia has the opportunity to replace its fragmented packaging stewardship system with a nationally coordinated Extended Producer Responsibility framework that supports investment, productivity and circularity.
Australia's packaging industry has spent years calling for greater policy certainty to underpin investment in recycling infrastructure, recycled content and circular packaging systems. A new report by sustainability and circular economy expert Helen Millicer argues the missing piece is a nationally coordinated Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework.
Published by One Planet Consulting, The Future of Producer Responsibility in Australia draws on more than 20 international EPR systems to argue that Australia has fallen behind comparable nations by relying on fragmented regulation and largely voluntary stewardship schemes. Rather than viewing EPR solely as an environmental measure, the report positions it as an economic and productivity reform capable of strengthening manufacturing, driving investment and improving resource efficiency.
A system under strain
The report argues Australia has not introduced a new nationally regulated EPR scheme since 2011, despite more than 80 countries now operating mandatory producer responsibility systems. It identifies fragmented regulation, free riders, underfunded voluntary schemes and inconsistent national coordination as key barriers to improving recycling and circularity outcomes.
According to the report, Australia's current regulatory fragmentation could cost the economy an estimated $26 billion in lost GDP over the next decade while adding more than $9 billion in household costs, citing modelling by the Australian Retail Council.
While the report contains extensive international benchmarking, Millicer said seeing successful producer responsibility systems operating first-hand highlighted just how differently they function.
“What surprised me most was how efficient and well coordinated are good systems overseas, and the contrast with Australia, which is such a fragmented system,” she said.
“It's highly inefficient for business, it's extremely costly for households, and for a 21st century economy like Australia, we can do better.”
Beyond recycling
A central theme of the report is that EPR should be viewed as more than a recycling policy. Millicer argues well-designed producer responsibility systems provide the governance and long-term funding needed to support investment in collection infrastructure, sorting, recycling, recycled content, product design and consumer education – creating stronger domestic manufacturing and more productive use of resources.
For the packaging industry, the report argues the focus should shift from managing packaging at end of life to designing a system that rewards better packaging design, supports investment in recovery infrastructure and creates markets for recycled materials.
“Good EPR systems overseas have extraordinary collection rates, which enables extraordinary sorting rates,” Millicer said, pointing to countries such as Belgium and Italy that have invested heavily in national collection and recycling infrastructure.
She also argues mandatory EPR provides the policy mechanism for increasing recycled content.
“It's only through EPR that these countries have mandated recycled content. If you don't have mandatory EPR, you don't have mandatory recycled content. Period.”
The report recommends eco-modulated producer fees that reward packaging designed for durability, reuse, repair, recyclability and recycled content, while discouraging packaging formats that increase waste management costs.
Building a better framework
One of the key questions for Australia's packaging industry is how mandatory EPR would fit alongside existing initiatives including APCO, the Australasian Recycling Label, National Packaging Targets, container deposit schemes, Soft Plastics Stewardship Australia and state-based regulation.
Rather than adding another layer, the report recommends a nationally coordinated framework supported by a single regulator and clear governance arrangements. It also proposes a managed transition that would allow existing organisations to evolve into a unified packaging producer responsibility system over time.
Millicer believes international experience demonstrates the value of simplified governance.
“The majority of high-performing countries have one regulator and one producer responsibility organisation for packaging,” she said.
“It's a very elegant and efficient coordination system, and the lowest cost for all concerned.”
The report also recommends nationally regulated EPR frameworks for priority product categories, national producer registries, stronger enforcement against free riders, greater transparency across stewardship schemes and eco-modulated producer fees that encourage better packaging design. Packaging is identified as one of the sectors ready for regulation over the next two years.
What happens next?
Millicer believes Australia is better placed than ever before to implement packaging EPR, pointing to growing industry consensus around the need for reform and the recent establishment of the National EPA.
“So many people now realise the system is broken,” she said.
“We now have a national EPA, and that is a fundamental building block that enables us to move forward.”
Whether governments ultimately adopt Millicer's recommendations in full remains to be seen. But as packaging reform gathers pace, the report adds substantial evidence – and international perspective – to a debate that is likely to shape Australia's packaging system for decades to come.
PROPOSED REFORMS
In summary, the eight key reforms needed to strengthen Australia’s EPR system are:
- Announce in 2026 plans to regulate nationally, not at state level, for mandatory EPR frameworks for priority products to stop free-riders by 2028.
- Stop fragmentation. Appoint the National EPA as regulator for EPR schemes, producer responsibility organisations and obliged parties.
- Empower the national EPA to penalise free riders, missed targets, identify malpractice and ensure good governance.
- Establish national producer registries to reduce free-riding, improve system security, consistency and scheme accountability.
- Immediately establish a bridging loan finance program, like used for the Oil Stewardship program in 2000 so schemes can scale up nationally ready for when regulations to come into effect.
- Ensure public benefit by regulating for not-for-profit schemes to minimise fraud and incentivise fair and broad industry investment and market growth.
- Require use of eco-modulated fees across regulated schemes to incentivise good circular eco-design.
- Streamline national reporting frameworks across schemes and producer responsibility organisations.
