Australia has spent years working towards packaging reform, so the Federal Government's decision not to introduce a new Commonwealth packaging scheme during its current term will understandably be met with disappointment across the sector.
After years of consultation, policy development, industry engagement and investment in understanding what a better packaging system could look like, it is difficult to hear that meaningful national reform will once again be delayed. However, it should not be seen as a pause in progress. Rather, it creates an opportunity for industry and government to continue working together on practical solutions that can deliver measurable outcomes. The question being asked is a fair one: what more needs to happen to help Australia move forward?
In my career, I have spent a lot of time working on sustainable packaging with both industry and government. I started in my family’s industrial packaging and recycling business, went on to work across industry and product stewardship, led Australia’s largest co-regulatory organisation for sustainable packaging, and most recently worked within one of Australia’s largest retailers.
These experiences have given me a view of packaging from almost every part of the system. And what it has taught me is that, fundamentally, we are all trying to achieve the same thing. Retailers, brands, manufacturers, recyclers, government and consumers might come at the challenge from different perspectives, ultimately, we are in service of the same outcome: a packaging system that works better, wastes less and moves us towards genuine circularity.
Consumers want better outcomes. Industry has repeatedly called for greater certainty. And despite the announcement – so does government. There has been extensive consultation. We have seen trials, grants, reports and commitments. There is broad agreement that packaging needs to be designed for recovery, that recycling markets need to be strengthened and that we all need to take greater responsibility for what happens to packaging at the end of life.
The opportunity now is to demonstrate practical solutions that government and industry can continue to refine and scale together. Australian industry has a long history of innovation and can play an important role in showing what works in practice.
Soft Plastics Stewardship Australia (SPSA) provides a strong example of how industry and government can work together to advance practical solutions. Industry has brought different parts of the value chain together to develop a model that government can support, strengthen and ultimately help scale nationally.
Effective reform often emerges when industry demonstrates what is possible and government provides the policy mechanisms needed to scale success. Neither can achieve lasting change alone.
There is an important role for government. Regulation can establish a level playing field, set minimum standards, create accountability and ensure that businesses cannot simply opt out of their responsibilities. However, government does not manufacture packaging, operate recycling facilities, develop new materials or create markets for recycled content. Those are fundamentally industry activities.
If we want different outcomes, every part of the value chain has a role to play. Industry must continue developing practical solutions, while government can help create the policy settings that support widespread adoption and investment.
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. We should be able to demonstrate how producers participate, how funding flows through the system, how performance is measured and how investment in collection, recycling and reprocessing can be sustained.
That would fundamentally change the conversation with government.
Rather than relying on government or industry to solve the challenge independently, both sectors have an opportunity to co-design practical solutions. Industry can demonstrate what works in practice, while government can provide the regulatory certainty needed to ensure consistency, accountability and scale.
EPR should not be viewed simply as another cost imposed on business. Done properly, it can be an economic mechanism that changes behaviour throughout the packaging system. It can encourage better design, create demand for recycled materials, support investment in infrastructure and ensure that the businesses making decisions about packaging have a meaningful role in managing its end-of-life impacts. For that to happen, EPR must be designed around outcomes and economics, rather than simply compliance.
Businesses need confidence that investment will deliver measurable results and that the system will be efficient and transparent. Recyclers and reprocessors need reliable markets. Local governments need a system that reduces the cost and complexity of managing packaging waste. Consumers need to see that the packaging they put in the recycling bin has a pathway through the system.
That is why partnerships across the value chain are so important.
Packaging manufacturers, brand owners, retailers, recyclers, reprocessors and other businesses need to work together to connect packaging design with collection, collection with processing, and processing with viable end markets.
No single organisation, sector or level of government can achieve these outcomes alone. The challenge is too complex and too interconnected. However, when industry innovation is matched by government support and policy certainty, we have an opportunity to build a packaging system that delivers environmental, economic and community benefits for all Australians.
