On 1 Sep 2026, a DCCEEW bureaucrat wrote on an “Official” basis to packaging stakeholders that: “ The Minister (Murray Watt) has communicated that a new Commonwealth scheme for packaging will not be introduced in this term of Government ….”
MRA managing director Mike Ritchie takes exception to that decision. Here’s why.
Dear Murray
I note your “Official” correspondence from the federal government deferring packaging reform until at least the next term of parliament. Firstly, I appreciate the honesty and frankness shown in making your decision public. Secondly, I must register my disappointment and frustration.
Packaging reform will save money in many areas of the economy- not increase costs. A RIS (Regulatory Impact Statement) would have enunciated these savings:
- Kerbside contamination
- Pulp mill paper, plastic, glass, steel and aluminium processing efficiency
- Landfill disposal savings
- Labelling cost savings
- Investment certainty
- Avoided company failures
- Lower ghg emissions through energy savings
- Lower litter and clean up costs
- Lower council waste charges
- Improved efficiency in the packaging supply chain.
At least three companies that invested tens of millions of dollars, in packaging reform (based on promises from this government), are now facing liquidation – I won’t name them but they include soft plastic recyclers, HDPE recyclers and chemical recyclers.
Only today Recycling Plastics Australia went into administration terminating 60 jobs and writing off $20m of taxpayer funded grant contributions.
This is due to a lack of direction on packaging policy. That is your wheelhouse.
Modelling done by APCO and MRA shows a properly run scheme would cost consumers about 0.3 cents per packaging item, or 20 cents on an average weekly shop (60 items) directly and virtually nothing once indirect savings are included.
If you ask voters, “Would you like plastic pollution and packaging sustainability to be improved for 20c per week?”, the answer is overwhelmingly “yes”. The costs would be returned in savings via the above efficiencies via council rates, lower packaging costs, lower greenhouse emissions, energy savings, lower pollution and litter clean-up costs etc.
The net cost to the economy is zero or very low, depending on the aspirations of your government to reduce emissions, reduce litter, grow recycled content and divert from landfill. The “cost of living” argument is real but overly simplistic in the case of packaging reform.
Again, a RIS would have documented proper costs and benefits. Not having done a RIS, it is impossible for you as Minister or the Department, to form a proper view about relative costs and benefits. That is disappointing.
Packaging reform was promised in 2023 by Minister Plibersek and has been kicked down the road ever since. It was agreed by the Meeting of all State and Federal Environment Ministers.
The packaging industry, the recycling industry, community groups and the environment movement are all calling for reform to lower costs and build certainty for investment. Deferring a decision does none of these things.
There is a strong consensus that this reform needs to be at the Commonwealth level because State based systems will be more expensive and inefficient.
I understand the challenge being faced by the government by the cost-of-living crunch and the emergence of One Nation, but that is not a reason to stop reform. It is a reason to argue for, and undertake, reform and give the voters a real choice of policy positions.
Particularly when the reform comes at no/low relative cost, improves efficiency in the economy and lowers pollution and emissions. It is also hugely popular. If Cabinet needs convincing, I am more than happy to provide a briefing based on an MRA conducted RIS.
Regards
Mike Ritchie