Packaging reform has been on and off Australia's policy agenda for more than two decades. Industry has talked, reviewed, trialled, consulted, and debated. Voluntary approaches have helped start the journey, but the outcomes tell us they haven't delivered what Australia needs.
We missed our 2025 National Packaging Targets, plastic recycling remains too low, recycled content sits below where it should be, and more than a million tonnes of plastic packaging ends up in landfill every year. Councils and ratepayers continue to carry costs that, in most comparable economies, fall on producers placing packaging on the market.
The voluntary system has plateaued. And we need to address this, especially now that the conditions around us have shifted considerably.
Why this moment feels different
Federal policymakers are listening. The direction emerging from the recent Environment Ministers' Meeting matters, as it signals progress toward a draft intergovernmental agreement rather than another round of review.
Having a clear mandate, direction, and deadline like this is a significant development.
There are a few reasons why the timing has converged. The states have been pushing for national harmonisation for years and are growing understandably impatient with the pace of change. Industry wants certainty and clarity. Environmental groups are demanding action, many of them very publicly. And Australia's major trading partners have already moved. The EU, UK, Canada, South Korea, and now China are all operating or actively building mandatory packaging systems.
All of this is converging around a genuine opportunity: a national packaging framework landing in 2027.
The question now is how well it will be designed.
One country, one system
At Phantm, we've been using this phrase to describe what we think the design should start with:
One national framework, one reporting system, one fee schedule, and one clear set of obligations for producers across Australia.
Industry has been asking for this kind of coherence for years, because fragmentation is expensive.
In practical terms, a national packaging EPR scheme means producers report standardised packaging data into a single national system. Fees are based on material type and weight, with harder-to-recycle packaging attracting higher fees and better-designed packaging attracting lower ones.
Instead of relying on downstream interventions, it creates a direct commercial incentive to improve packaging design upstream.
EPR should not be reduced to a funding mechanism for recycling alone. It should reward better decisions earlier in the chain, reduction, simplification, better material selection, clearer accountability.
The best schemes do not just pay for waste. They help prevent it.
The cost question
Cost matters. It matters even more in a tight market where every cost input is under pressure. But the modelling is clear enough to give confidence that reform can be designed in a way that reflects commercial reality.
Under a phased approach, the early consumer impact is negligible, with little to no impact in the first years of implementation. Even once fully operational, the likely household impact is modest relative to the system change being delivered.
We've modelled this extensively. The household cost impact of a national packaging EPR is a one-off level adjustment, not an ongoing inflation driver. At 25 cents per week per household (roughly $17.50 a year), it is the systems change we need... for pocket change.
The full consumer impact model (with scenario analysis, sensitivity ranges, and worked examples) is available on request. And it is independently validated by Rennie Advisory work for ACOR and APCO, which found an EPR adds just 0.1% to product costs.
The fees that do end up being collected are investments in the future, not the usual sunk costs. In a properly designed scheme, the money collected is reinvested back into the system: recovery, infrastructure, capability, and long-term efficiency.
Strengthening local industry and sovereign capability
What many mistake for a recycling problem is actually more of a market utilisation challenge. This is an important reframing when tackling this issue.
Parts of the infrastructure exist, but the economics remain weak because there is not enough stable demand, certainty, or structural support. Global resin volatility and supply chain disruption have only exposed that weakness even further.
A credible EPR framework helps address this. It creates a stable, auditable revenue stream. It provides a clearer end-market demand signal for recycled material. It gives local operators more confidence to invest. And it starts to rebuild something Australia badly needs: sovereign capability in materials innovation, reuse, recycled content, and recovery.
The trade dimension
This is an instance in which waste policy spills over into both industrial and trade policy.
Australia is lagging behind the markets it trades with. The EU, UK, Canada, and much of Asia are already operating or building mandatory packaging systems and the data architecture that comes with them.
Packaging data, recyclability, traceability, and recycled content are increasingly part of the price of market access. Without a credible domestic framework, Australian businesses face rising friction offshore while leaving the local market more exposed to poor-quality packaging outcomes at home.
That is a difficult position for industry, and a concerning one for the country more broadly.
Governance matters
None of this works unless governance is right. When Australia implements a national packaging EPR scheme, it must be administered independently, at arm's length, and with balanced representation across the value chain.
Independent administration is central to credibility.
No single interest group should dominate the system, slow reform, or shape outcomes in its own favour. Good governance is how you build trust, maintain momentum, and ensure a necessary reform delivers meaningful outcomes rather than becoming another compromise that falls short of what’s required.
Getting on with it
Australia does not need a perfect scheme on day one. It needs a workable scheme now, with the discipline to improve it over time.
That means:
- Legislating a national framework;
- Establishing independent administration;
- Building the packaging data infrastructure; and
- Giving industry a clear line of sight on where the system is heading.
Delay has a cost, and we have already spent too long without properly accounting for it.
This is a rare policy moment when the environmental, economic, and industry cases finally line up. We should (and must) make the most of it.
‘One country, one system’ is the clearest path to lower complexity, better investment signals, fairer cost allocation, and stronger long-term outcomes for Australia.
Watch PKN's Industry Update video interview with Elliot Costello here.
