Bill Debate · Second Reading

Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Senate · Thursday 13 August 2026

Continued from Wednesday 13 May 2026.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The Senate debated a private senator's bill to establish a mandatory national extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging. The Australian Greens supported the legislation, arguing that voluntary targets had failed and that producers must bear the cost of end-of-life management to address plastic pollution and health risks. The Labor Party opposed the bill, stating that while the problem was severe, a holistic approach involving market signals for recycled materials and global cooperation was required before implementing such a scheme. One Nation opposed the bill, characterising it as excessive regulation that would increase costs for consumers and businesses. The debate concluded with the government indicating it would not support the bill.

Outcome

The government indicated it would not support the bill.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Peter Whish-Wilson (TAS) (Australian Greens) Greens

Senator Whish-Wilson argued that the bill addressed a market failure by making producers financially responsible for the end-of-life management of their packaging. Whish-Wilson noted that voluntary targets had consistently failed because corporations are legally required to maximise shareholder profit. The senator highlighted that the recycling industry, which employs 90,000 Australians, and various packaging producers now support mandated regulation. Whish-Wilson cited international precedents and previous Senate inquiries, including the 2015 Toxic Tide report, to demonstrate the urgency of the issue. Whish-Wilson emphasised the health impacts of microplastics and the environmental damage to marine life, such as shearwaters on Lord Howe Island, urging senators to pass the legislation with minor amendments.

Government response

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Minister for the Environment) ALP VIC

Senator Ananda-Rajah stated that the government would not support the bill, despite acknowledging the severe health and environmental impacts of plastic pollution. Ananda-Rajah cited evidence from the Minderoo Foundation and the Lancet regarding the presence of microplastics in human organs and their link to various health conditions. The minister argued that extended producer responsibility alone was insufficient without strong procurement drivers to create markets for recycled materials, noting that Europe had lost processing capacity due to lack of demand. Ananda-Rajah emphasised the need for a holistic approach that includes reducing plastic production at the source through global cooperation, such as the Global Plastics Treaty, rather than relying solely on recycling mechanisms.

Malcolm Roberts (QLD) (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) One Nation oppose

Senator Roberts opposed the bill, arguing that it imposed excessive regulatory burdens on businesses and consumers. Roberts contended that the mandatory nature of the scheme and its reporting requirements would lead to higher prices and inflation. Roberts characterised the concept of a circular economy as elitist and detrimental to everyday Australians. Roberts stated that One Nation opposed what he termed excessive green tape that would reduce productivity and economic opportunity.
Steph Hodgins-May (VIC) (Australian Greens) Greens support

Senator Hodgins-May supported the bill, highlighting the failure of voluntary targets and the urgent need for system change. Hodgins-May noted that 63 per cent of Australians supported mandatory packaging laws, with support rising to 70 per cent among Labor voters. The senator pointed out that container deposit schemes achieved high collection rates, whereas plastic packaging recycling remained at around 12 per cent. Hodgins-May argued that producers should bear responsibility for the waste they create, rather than placing the burden on consumers.
Penny Allman-Payne (QLD) (Australian Greens) Greens support

Senator Allman-Payne supported the bill, citing shocking evidence from the Senate inquiry into microplastics regarding their presence in human cells. Allman-Payne noted that the inquiry produced a consensus report recommending the expansion of extended producer responsibility schemes. The senator argued that the New South Wales EPA indicated such a scheme could be implemented within six to 12 months. Allman-Payne urged the chamber to act on the issue, noting that the fossil fuel industry was seeking to increase plastic production as other markets declined.
David Shoebridge (NSW) (Australian Greens) Greens support

Senator Shoebridge supported the bill, describing the severe impact of plastic pollution on marine life, particularly shearwaters on Lord Howe Island. Shoebridge criticised the government for delaying action and relying on consultation processes rather than implementing binding obligations. The senator argued that the rhetoric of personal responsibility was not applied to corporate polluters and their political donors. Shoebridge expressed frustration with the government's lack of progress, citing departmental advice that emphasised further design work and consultation.

First speaker today

Peter Whish-Wilson (TAS) (Australian Greens)

Greens

Bill

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

Speeches

6 speeches, 4 other contributors

Topics

Environment & Water

Debate Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026; First Reading Bill Debate, 13 May 2026 · Same bill
Debate Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026; Second Reading Bill Debate, 13 May 2026 · Same bill
Debate Waste Management and Recycling: Plastic Packaging Take Note Debate, 15 Sep 2026 · Shared topic: Environment & Water
Debate Water Matter of Public Importance, 14 Sep 2026 · Shared topic: Environment & Water
Question Time House Question Time 17 Aug 2026 · Shared topic: Environment & Water

About Senate debates

The Senate debates bills, motions, matters of public importance and the answers given in Question Time. Senators from all parties and the crossbench take part, and a minister or the minister representing them usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.