The short answer

Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026 explained

The Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026 is a private Senator's bill introduced by Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson on 13 May 2026. If passed, it would establish a mandatory extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme requiring producers, importers and distributors of packaging to manage that packaging across its full lifecycle — from design and material choices through to collection, recycling and disposal. The bill would shift the financial and operational burden of packaging waste away from local councils and households and onto the businesses that place packaged goods on the Australian market. As at 17 July 2026 the bill is before the Senate, having been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee with a report due by 6 August 2026. No amendments have been circulated. For the bill to become law it must pass the Senate, then the House of Representatives, and receive Royal Assent.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill proposes

The bill would create a legislative framework for a mandatory extended producer responsibility scheme covering all packaging placed on the Australian market. Under the scheme, producers, importers and distributors of packaged goods would bear responsibility for managing packaging waste across the product's entire lifecycle.

This includes ensuring packaging is designed to be reusable, recyclable or compostable; funding and operating collection and recovery systems; meeting recovery and recycled-content targets; and reporting on packaging volumes and outcomes.

The bill would establish a scheme administrator — likely a co-regulatory body — with powers to set standards, collect levies from obligated businesses, and enforce compliance. The administrator would be funded by levies paid by obligated businesses, calculated based on the volume and type of packaging they place on the market.

The scheme is modelled on EPR systems already operating in several European Union member states and in Canadian provinces, where packaging producers fund kerbside collection and sorting infrastructure rather than leaving those costs with municipal councils and ratepayers. In Germany, the Green Dot scheme has operated since 1991 and is credited with significantly increasing packaging recycling rates. In British Columbia, producers have fully funded residential recycling programs since 2014.

A key feature of the bill is eco-modulation of fees: businesses that use packaging that is more easily recyclable or less environmentally harmful would pay lower levies than those using problematic materials such as multi-layered plastics or non-recyclable composites. This creates a financial incentive for packaging redesign at the point of manufacture, which is widely regarded as more effective than end-of-pipe recycling solutions.

Evidence review

Who is affected

The bill would impose obligations on three categories of businesses: producers (those who manufacture packaged goods in Australia), importers (those who bring packaged goods into Australia), and distributors (those who sell or supply packaged goods, including retailers). Small businesses below a defined threshold may be exempt from some obligations, though the precise threshold would be set by regulations.

Local governments would be significant beneficiaries. Australian councils currently spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on kerbside collection and sorting of household packaging waste, costs that are ultimately borne by ratepayers. Under the bill, these costs would shift to the businesses that place packaging on the market.

Households would also benefit indirectly. While packaging costs would likely be built into product prices, households would no longer see packaging waste management as a separate council charge. The scheme is designed to make the true cost of packaging visible at the point of purchase, which supporters argue would drive consumer demand for less packaging.

The packaging industry — including manufacturers of glass, plastic, paper and metal packaging — would face new compliance costs and design requirements. The waste management and recycling sector would see changes to its funding model, with levy revenue from producers replacing council contracts as the primary source of funding for collection and sorting.

Evidence review

Current status and progress

The bill was introduced in the Senate on 13 May 2026 and the second reading was moved on the same day. On 14 May 2026 the bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The committee is due to report by 6 August 2026.

As at 17 July 2026 no proposed amendments have been circulated and the bill has not yet progressed to a second reading debate. The committee process is the critical next step: it will receive submissions from stakeholders, hold hearings, and make recommendations about whether the bill should proceed.

The bill is a private Senator's bill, which means it was introduced by an individual Senator rather than by the government. Private bills face a higher hurdle for passage, as they do not have the automatic support of the government's parliamentary numbers. For the bill to pass, it would need majority support in the Senate and then in the House of Representatives.

The government has its own packaging regulation agenda, with Commonwealth, state and territory environment ministers having agreed in 2023 to move towards mandatory regulation. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has been developing a Commonwealth regulatory framework. The relationship between Senator Whish-Wilson's bill and the government's regulatory package will be an important factor in the bill's future.

Evidence review

How the scheme would work in practice

The bill proposes a regulatory framework under which the minister would declare an EPR scheme for packaging. Obligated businesses would be required to join the scheme, pay levies based on the volume and type of packaging they place on the market, and meet performance targets set by the scheme administrator.

The scheme administrator would use the levy revenue to fund collection, sorting and recycling infrastructure, as well as public education campaigns about packaging reduction and correct recycling practices. A portion of the revenue would also fund research and development into alternative packaging materials and improved recycling technologies.

Enforcement mechanisms would include civil penalties for non-compliance, audit powers allowing the administrator to inspect business records, and public reporting of company-level performance data. The public reporting provisions are significant: they would allow consumers, investors and advocacy groups to compare the packaging performance of different brands, creating reputational incentives for improvement.

The bill also includes provisions requiring the scheme administrator to work with state and territory governments to ensure national consistency. This is important because waste management and recycling infrastructure are primarily state and local government responsibilities, and any national scheme must integrate with existing state-based systems such as container deposit schemes.

Evidence review

Policy context: why voluntary approaches have not been enough

Australia currently has a voluntary packaging covenant — the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) — under which businesses set voluntary targets for packaging recyclability and recycled content. APCO was established in 1999 and has operated through a series of strategic plans, the most recent of which set 2025 National Packaging Targets including 100 per cent reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging.

However, Australia has not met its 2025 targets. The most recent data shows that approximately 86 per cent of packaging is recyclable, compostable or reusable, falling short of the 100 per cent target. Recycling rates for plastic packaging remain particularly low, with only around 18 per cent of plastic packaging being recycled. The remaining plastic packaging goes to landfill, is stockpiled, or is exported.

The failure to meet voluntary targets has driven the push for mandatory regulation. Commonwealth, state and territory environment ministers agreed in 2023 to move towards a mandatory approach. Senator Whish-Wilson's bill would accelerate this process by legislating an EPR scheme directly, rather than waiting for the government's regulatory package.

International experience strongly suggests that mandatory EPR schemes achieve higher recycling rates than voluntary approaches. Countries with mandatory EPR, such as Germany, Belgium and South Korea, consistently outperform countries with voluntary systems on packaging recovery and recycling metrics.

Evidence review

What happens next

The immediate next step is the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee's report, due by 6 August 2026. The committee is likely to hear from packaging producers, local government associations, environmental groups, and waste management operators.

If the committee recommends the bill proceed, it would return to the Senate for second reading debate. If the committee recommends against the bill or proposes substantial amendments, Senator Whish-Wilson may need to negotiate with government and crossbench senators to secure passage.

Even if the bill passes the Senate, it would then need to be introduced in the House of Representatives, where the government controls the legislative program. The government has signalled its own intention to regulate packaging through subordinate legislation, which could mean the bill is not brought forward for debate.

Observers should monitor both the committee report and any government announcement of its own packaging regulation package. The interaction between the two processes — a private Senator's bill and a government regulatory package — will determine the ultimate shape of packaging regulation in Australia.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer

What is an extended producer responsibility scheme?

An extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme is a policy approach that makes producers responsible for the environmental impacts of their products throughout the product lifecycle, especially at the post-consumer stage. In the context of packaging, it means the businesses that make or import packaged goods pay for the collection, sorting and recycling of the packaging, rather than leaving those costs to councils and households. EPR is based on the 'polluter pays' principle and has been adopted in many jurisdictions internationally.

Who introduced this bill and why?

The bill was introduced by Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson on 13 May 2026. Senator Whish-Wilson argues that Australia's current voluntary packaging targets have failed — Australia has not met its 2025 National Packaging Targets and plastic recycling rates remain low — and that legislation is needed to compel businesses to take financial responsibility for the packaging waste they create. The bill's title — 'No Time to Waste' — reflects the urgency the sponsor attaches to the issue.

Will this bill increase prices for consumers?

The bill does not prescribe specific levy rates, which would be set by regulations. Any costs imposed on producers may be passed through to consumers in the form of slightly higher prices for packaged goods. However, the bill's supporters argue that households already pay for packaging waste through council rates — the bill would make those costs more transparent and create incentives for producers to use less packaging, which could offset price increases over time.

How does this bill differ from existing packaging regulation?

Australia currently relies on the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), a voluntary scheme where businesses set their own targets. The bill would replace voluntary commitments with mandatory legal obligations, including compulsory levies, enforceable recovery targets, civil penalties for non-compliance, and public reporting of company-level performance. It represents a shift from industry self-regulation to statutory regulation backed by enforcement powers.

What happens if the government introduces its own packaging regulation?

The government has been developing its own packaging regulation package since the 2023 agreement by environment ministers. If the government introduces its own legislation or regulations, Senator Whish-Wilson's bill could be superseded, or elements of both approaches could be merged. The Senate committee inquiry provides a forum for examining how the two approaches compare.

Source spine

Primary material used for this guide

Review trigger: Review when the Senate committee reports (due 6 August 2026), when any amendments are circulated, when the bill proceeds to second reading debate, or when the government announces its own packaging regulation package.

Archive note: Article based on bill homepage and parliamentary progress data as at 17 July 2026. Bill text and explanatory memorandum were available via ParlInfo but could not be directly accessed due to web application firewall restrictions at time of review.

Primary links are provided without affiliate or tracking parameters. Confirm that the source still applies to the bill, sitting date, jurisdiction or reporting period before relying on it.