Phantm presents evidence at senate inquiry into packaging reform

The Senate inquiry into mandatory packaging EPR showed strong alignment across industry, government and environmental groups. The question is now how quickly (and how well) the system is designed.

Australia’s packaging reform debate is gathering steam.

At Friday’s Senate hearing into the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026, sponsored by Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, Phantm presented evidence on one of the most important questions facing packaging reform: how to make mandatory EPR practical, useful and effective for Australian businesses.

Across the day, industry bodies, recycling leaders, environmental groups and policy experts made the case for change. And while not entirely identical across the board, the message and the direction of travel was crystal clear.

Voluntary action has not delivered the level and scale of change Australia needs.

We left with an overwhelming impression that what remains of the debate now centres around design, timing and implementation.

Mandatory EPR is no longer a radical idea

A key theme from the hearing was that Extended Producer Responsibility is not new, and it is not radical. Similar schemes have been operating in many of Australia’s trading partners for some time.

Witnesses pointed to the need for national consistency, practical implementation, better recycling markets, improved packaging design and stronger investment signals across the system.

APCO recognised the value of building from existing foundations, while acknowledging that voluntary action has not gone far enough. The Australian Food and Grocery Council reinforced the need for reform that recognises the role packaging plays in food safety, shelf life and supply chains. Recycling and resource recovery leaders made the upstream challenge clear: the waste sector cannot keep being left to manage poor design decisions at the end of the system.

The objections raised during the hearing were mostly about how reform should be designed, not whether reform is needed.

Helen Millicer roundly headed off any concerns about potential cost of living impacts from an EPR. Mandatory EPR should not be treated as another waste cost or household burden. Evidence from the UK and Europe shows well-designed schemes can shift existing costs away from councils and ratepayers, while funding collection, processing and recycling across the system. As Millicer put it,

EPR should be understood as a productivity solution, helping Australia build the manufacturing, recycling and resource recovery capability it needs.

Other concerns expressed on the day about timing, duplication, recycled content feasibility, small business burden and food waste all point to the need for a phased, well-designed national scheme. They do not make the case for delay.

Phantm’s evidence landed in the practical middle of the debate

Phantm’s contribution centred on a simple point: EPR should not become paperwork for its own sake.

Our evidence made the case for commencing the national framework now, while phasing obligations carefully through the scheme rules. That approach gives businesses time to prepare, improve packaging data, engage suppliers, understand cost exposure and make better packaging decisions before full producer fees apply.

It also responds to many of the concerns raised during the day, particularly around small business readiness, cost impact, supplier complexity and the risk of fragmented state-based regulation.

Importantly, Phantm’s research and modelling were referenced several times throughout the hearing and positioned alongside established sector modelling.

Packaging data must be part of the solution

The purpose of packaging data in this shift towards EPR has moved on from completing a compliance report.

Used properly, packaging data creates a clearer view of what businesses are placing on market, what materials are being used, what those materials weigh, where packaging decisions are made, and where change can realistically occur.

That data can support better regulation, better business decisions, better supplier engagement and better investment signals across the system.

For brands, this is where packaging reform becomes practical. A mandatory EPR scheme will require businesses to understand their packaging at a much deeper level than many do today. That means SKU, component, material, weight and supplier data will become increasingly important.

It also means the data layer needs to be designed into the scheme from the beginning.

The framework can begin now

One of the most important moments of the day came from DCCEEW, which confirmed that the existing Recycling and Waste Reduction (RAWR) Act provides a pathway for mandatory and co-regulatory product stewardship schemes.

This is key because it supports a practical middle path: commence the framework now, then phase obligations carefully through the scheme rules.

This gives businesses time to prepare, improve packaging data, engage suppliers, understand cost exposure and make better packaging decisions before full producer fees apply.

Regulation will drive results

It's highly unlikely that Peter Whish-Wilson's Private Members Bill will make it across the line. And while, this Senate inquiry showed that Australia is not short on ambition, our track record shows that our leaders often lack the political will to shift the system settings needed to turn ambition into outcomes.

Mandatory national EPR can help change that. And with a amendment to the Recycling and Waste Reduction (RAWR) Act, Murray Watt and the DCCEEW could enact one tomorrow.

But for packaging reform to work, it needs more than reporting obligations. It needs reliable data, clear rules, national consistency and a phased pathway that helps businesses move from compliance to action.

If Australia wants a different outcome, it needs different settings. And a well designed EPR will drive results.