PKN EXCLUSIVE: As Australia's packaging reform agenda gathers pace, the conversation is shifting from whether we need Extended Producer Responsibility to what an effective system should look like. Helen Millicer, CEO of One Planet Consulting, has suggestions drawn from extensive research in overseas markets.
Video transcript (edited for clarity)
Lindy Hughson in conversation with Helen Millicer, CEO, One Planet Consulting
Lindy Hughson:
Hello, and welcome to PKN Industry Update.
Today we're discussing product stewardship and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Australia's packaging industry has long argued that voluntary stewardship can only take us so far. But what does a mandatory EPR system actually look like, and how would it work in practice?
A new report by sustainability and circular economy expert Helen Millicer, CEO of One Planet Consulting, examines more than 20 international EPR systems and concludes that Australia has an opportunity to move beyond fragmented regulation towards a nationally coordinated framework that supports investment, innovation and circularity.
Helen joins me today to explore the report's key findings, what they mean for packaging, and how Australia can build an EPR system that's fit for the future.
Welcome, Helen.
You spent six months studying producer responsibility systems around the world. What surprised you most, and has it changed the way you think about Australia's packaging system?
Helen Millicer:
Thanks, Lindy.
I spent six months in Europe researching these systems, but I've worked in this space for decades, both in government and industry.
What surprised me most was just how efficient and well coordinated the best systems overseas are, and the contrast with Australia's fragmented approach. We have state-based container deposit schemes, a national covenant, poor accounting of products entering the market, extensive free riders and a lack of coordination.
It's highly inefficient for business, costly for households and, for a 21st century economy like Australia, we can do much better.
Lindy Hughson:
Those aren't new challenges for our industry. Having immersed yourself in this research, what gives you confidence Australia can actually get packaging EPR right?
Helen Millicer:
I think the biggest reason is that more people now recognise the system is broken. When you reach that point, there's momentum for reform.
We also now have the National EPA, and I see that as the ideal regulator for EPR. It provides the foundation for one national framework covering both imported and locally manufactured packaging, with one regulator and one set of rules. That gives me far greater confidence that Australia can move towards a modern system.
Lindy Hughson:
Your report reframes EPR as productivity reform, not just recycling policy. What does that change in practical terms for brands, packaging manufacturers, recyclers and government?
Helen Millicer:
One of the biggest opportunities is structural reform.
If you look at high-performing countries such as Belgium, France and Italy, most have one national regulator and one producer responsibility organisation for packaging. In Belgium there are separate organisations for household and commercial packaging, but they're still nationally coordinated.
That means the data is trusted, reporting is consistent and the system is managed by a not-for-profit organisation acting in the interests of producers, government and the public. It's an elegant, efficient and comparatively low-cost model.
Lindy Hughson:
The packaging industry broadly accepts that voluntary stewardship has reached its limit. What should a mandatory national packaging EPR scheme actually fund?
Helen Millicer:
The best systems fund the entire value chain.
They invest in collection, sorting, recycling, recycled content, consumer education and continuous improvement.
Belgium, for example, is approaching an 80 per cent recycling rate because it has invested consistently in collection and sorting infrastructure. Italy has also achieved outstanding collection rates through nationally coordinated systems.
Australia has invested very little in reusable packaging, while countries such as Brazil continue to evolve their systems and expand investment.
Importantly, mandatory EPR also provides the mechanism for introducing recycled content requirements.
If you don't have mandatory EPR, you don't have mandatory recycled content. Period.
Lindy Hughson:
Australia already has APCO, the Australasian Recycling Label, National Packaging Targets, container deposit schemes, Soft Plastics Stewardship Australia, kerbside reforms and state-based regulation. How does mandatory EPR simplify that landscape rather than add another layer?
Helen Millicer:
It shouldn't add another layer – it should replace and coordinate what already exists.
A producer responsibility organisation operates on behalf of government, industry and the public. Over time, existing initiatives could evolve into a nationally coordinated packaging EPR framework.
In my report I've recommended regulations be announced in 2026, taking effect by 2028, supported by an independent transition process to help bring existing organisations together.
The packaging industry needs clear market signals about what good packaging looks like and the confidence to invest in the sorting and reprocessing infrastructure Australia needs.
Lindy Hughson:
Your report points to international models, particularly Belgium and France. What design features should Australia adopt, and what mistakes should we avoid?
Helen Millicer:
One of the clearest lessons is to avoid multiple for-profit producer responsibility organisations.
Several European countries have recently moved away from that model after experiencing issues around governance, transparency and conflicts of interest.
The strongest systems are typically not-for-profit organisations operating in the public interest under strong regulatory oversight.
That's consistent across many of the countries I studied, including Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and the United States.
If Australia adopts those governance principles, we'll be adopting international best practice.
Lindy Hughson:
Your report suggests packaging is ready for regulation. If the Federal Government moved now, what would industry need to do over the next two years?
Helen Millicer:
The Minister already has the power to regulate under existing legislation.
My recommendation is that government announce regulations in 2026, to commence no later than 2028, and establish a bridging finance program so preferred producer responsibility organisations can scale up.
That would allow reporting, auditing and governance systems to be established ahead of implementation, while giving industry time to come together around a national approach.
The important thing is to establish the framework and provide certainty so industry can begin investing with confidence.
Lindy Hughson:
Helen, congratulations on an important piece of work. I hope the report stimulates meaningful discussion across industry and government. Thank you for joining us today.
Helen Millicer:
Thank you, Lindy.
