The packaging EPR inquiry finally has a public transcript, and nobody can say yet who the scheme would capture

We covered the bill itself in July, when the argument was about whether mandatory extended producer responsibility should happen at all. The hearing evidence moves the question along: broadly, it should, and almost nobody at this hearing argued otherwise. What nobody could answer is the part that decides your exposure.

The scope question, asked by the small-business regulator

The most directly useful evidence for this trade came from an unexpected witness. The NSW Small Business Commissioner, Kalina Koloff, appeared and said the commission supports the bill and the objective of reducing packaging waste and improving sustainability outcomes, but that its design will be critical to ensuring it operates effectively and proportionately, especially when it comes to small business.

Then the sentence that matters. On who the scheme would actually capture, she said the scope and the definition of producer will be central, that key elements include thresholds and exemptions, and that they are not yet defined. Her concern was that many small businesses operate as importers, brand owners, franchisees or online retailers and could be captured despite relatively low volumes and limited resources. She asked for clear turnover-based and packaging-volume thresholds, with the possibility of graduated or tiered obligations.

She also named the administrative problem precisely, and it will be familiar to anyone who has tried to answer a customer's packaging questionnaire: small businesses do not currently collect detailed packaging data and often rely on suppliers, with limited visibility of what the packaging is actually made of. New reporting duties would mean new systems, and she flagged the risk of duplication where the same information gets reported across multiple frameworks or up and down a supply chain.

The line printers and converters should read twice

On cost, the Commissioner was blunt about where it lands: Even where the obligations primarily apply to larger producers, it is likely that costs will be passed through the supply chain and impact small business significantly. She put that against a backdrop of small business confidence being low and insolvency rates rising, and singled out franchisees as particularly exposed, facing increased input costs without any ability to influence packaging decisions.

That is the mechanism this trade should plan around. A scheme aimed at brand owners does not stop at brand owners. It arrives as a specification change, a substrate change, or a question on a purchase order, and the business that has to answer it is often the converter.

The department would not be drawn

The other notable thing is what did not happen. Cameron Hutchison, Acting Head of the department's Circular Economy Division, told the committee the department is currently developing advice for government on packaging reform and is also undertaking a statutory review of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, whose report is anticipated to be delivered to the minister shortly before being tabled in parliament.

He then drew a firm line, noting an important distinction between the bill before the committee and the broader government consideration of reform of national packaging regulation, and said the department was not in a position to speculate on future government decisions, the content of any future regulatory proposal or recommendations that might arise from that review.

Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, whose party sponsored the bill, responded: Well, that answers a lot of my questions, to be honest. I suppose I can try and reframe some of them.

The covenant body agrees with the direction

APCO, which has administered the voluntary covenant throughout, is not defending the status quo. Chief executive Chris Foley told the committee APCO welcomes the intent behind the No Time to Waste bill and that Australia needs packaging reform and a mandatory extended producer responsibility framework. He described the current arrangements as the fourth and we expect final iteration of Australian Packaging Covenant, running since 2017.

He gave the covenant's own scorecard: brand owner signatories up from around 900 to 2,500 over nine years, and the Australasian Recycling Label, launched in 2018, now used by around 1,000 companies and appearing on more than 500,000 products. But he was direct that the targets have not been met, and that the reason is economic rather than technical: it costs more to collect, sort and reprocess many packaging materials than the market value of recycled materials, so Australian recycled material struggles against virgin and imported alternatives. APCO's own proposed model adds eco-modulated fees and service payments on top of covenant activity to close that gap.

What this means before 6 August

Our reading, labelled as such. Three things follow for a printer or converter. First, the direction is settled and the argument has moved to design, so planning on continued voluntary arrangements is the risky choice. Second, the single variable that decides whether you are directly obligated, the threshold, does not exist yet, and the small-business regulator had to say so in a public hearing. Third, and least comfortable, a private senator's bill and a departmental reform process are running in parallel, and the department has declined to connect them on the record.

The committee reports on 6 August. The realistic function of a bill like this is usually not passage but forcing a timetable out of government, and the statutory review landing with the minister shortly is the thing to watch after the report.

Sources

1. Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Hansard transcript, 26 June 2026, Sydney (PDF, 82 pages, downloaded 3 August 2026): all quoted evidence from the NSW Small Business Commissioner, the department and APCO.
2. Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Public hearings and transcripts: that the Sydney transcript is now published and the 28 July Canberra transcript is not yet available. Read 3 August 2026.
3. Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry home: the 6 August 2026 reporting date and submission count.
4. Our earlier report on the bill: what it would do and the consultation evidence behind it.

Gave evidence, made a submission, or seeing this differently from the factory floor? Tell us, with documents.