The Future of Producer Responsibility in Australia

Australia is at a turning point. The overwhelming preference is for national regulated EPR, however, states and territories are now moving forward to legislate and regulate in the absence of national action. There is a growing chorus from an increasing number of industry sectors, peak groups, communities, producer schemes and governments for action, and discussions on which way Australia should go forward.

It is therefore timely to publish a report on the key policy questions on options and their benefits, costs, ramifications and results by drawing on schemes and reports from Australia and around the world.
I thank Professor John Thwaites of Monash Business School and previously Chair of the Circular Economy Advisory Group to the Australian Government, for his encouragement to publish this independent report and his comments of its importance and urgency.

My report The Future of Producer Responsibility in Australia: International Solutions That Will Fix a Broken System published on 6 July 2026 contains 10 key findings and 15 recommendations for governments and industry. The aim is to help Australia avoid the pitfalls and adopt the best models and regulations and controls from overseas, fixing our broken product management system as quickly as possible.

John Thwaites writes in his Foreword “Importantly, this report does not simply identify problems. It draws on international experience and practical examples to propose realistic pathways for reform suited to Australian conditions. Its recommendations provide a valuable contribution to governments, industry and policy makers as Australia develops the next phase of circular economy and product stewardship reform.”

In the report I describe how Australia has become an outlier amongst comparable nations. Since the 1980s, more than 80 nations have developed mandatory EPR frameworks, most to fix recycling and increasingly to improve productivity, supply chain resilience and sovereign capability. Most nations have national regulations, not fragmented by states, most have one regulator, not 10 like Australia, and 87% choose not-for-profit Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) to deliver public-benefit services according to contracted national government targets and requirements.

In fact, it has been 15 years since an Australian Minister last ruled for a national EPR scheme. There are currently 22 pieces of legislation and regulation at state and national levels for schemes for oil and TV-Computers, container deposits, for the packaging covenant, and now in NSW for batteries. If poor decisions are made conceivably, we could have decades of partial EPR legislation and regulations, ending up with eight multiples of regulation for each priority product in Australia (mattresses, tyres, batteries, clothing, solar PV etc) and no national coordination, education or efficiencies.

The report is methodically structured around the three essential parts for successful EPR 1. Regulations, 2. PROs, 3. Regulator with plentiful case studies to illustrate the features, impacts and opportunities available to Australia. It also contains a short history of EPR, summary of Australian laws and regulations, problem statement describing Australia’s challenges, and comprehensive bibliography.

This report draws on extensive international research and analysis gathered over years working in industry, government and consulting, plus decades on governance boards. With input from many wonderful expert colleagues from Australia and overseas I have endeavoured to set out commonsense measures to be adopted for efficient coordination for improved circular products and packaging in Australia now and for decades to come. We cannot afford continued fragmentation, the weaking of Australian manufacturing, repair, recycling and supply chains, and the continued cost burden placed upon households, businesses, councils and the environment.

The report makes eight recommendations for national reform:

1. Regulate nationally, not at state level, for mandatory EPR frameworks for priority products to stop free-riding producers by 2028.
2. Stop fragmentation. Appoint the national EPA as regulator for EPR schemes, producer responsibility organisations and liable parties.
3. Empower the national EPA to penalise free riders, missed targets, identify malpractice and ensure good governance.
4. Establish national producer registries to reduce free-riding, improve system security, consistency and scheme accountability.
5. Immediately establish a bridging loan finance program, like used for the Oil Stewardship program in 2000 so schemes can scale up nationally ready for when regulations to come into effect in 2027 and 2028.
6. Ensure public benefit by regulating for not-for-profit schemes to minimise fraud and incentivise fair and broad industry investment and market growth.
7. Require use of eco-modulated fees across regulated schemes to incentivise good circular eco-design.
8. Streamline national reporting frameworks across schemes and producer responsibility organisations.

Thank you to the Product Stewardship Centre for Excellence for the opportunity to engage with its audiences. Thanks also to those who contributed to the report, reviewed, and provided insights. Readers can find the report and associated material here.
 

Helen Millicer, GAICD, Churchill Fellow
Chief Executive Officer
One Planet Consulting