Talking Point: Stand up for the container refund scheme you deserve, not what big companies want

ROBERT KELMAN: People in NSW go shopping and recycle their containers at the same time. No extra trips and higher rates of recycling. Tassie can do better still

Tasmania can design the country’s most cost-effective container refund scheme and even introduce refillable bottles.

AROUND the world, Coca-Cola has spent decades fighting to stop container deposit schemes (in 2013 Coke went to court to stop the Northern Territory introducing a scheme).

Now that governments are introducing these schemes, Coke is fighting to operate them — and Tasmania is the next target (Talking Point, March 18).

Coke’s motivation is simple: it’s all about money. If they can keep recycling rates low, they don’t have to refund consumers their 10c deposit and they pocket tens of millions of dollars a year.

Coke keeps the recycling rates low by making these schemes as inconvenient as possible for consumers to access recycling centres and get their refund back.

Unlike countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, which get 98 per cent-plus recycling rates for drink containers, South Australia after 40 years still gets just 76 per cent — so about 200 million drink containers in SA still get littered or landfilled every year. The difference for beverage producers between those two recycling rates is a windfall gain of about $35 million in SA alone each year.

Michigan in the US with a 10c deposit (like South Australia) gets 93 per cent recycling. Germany, Michigan, Lithuania, Norway, Finland, Oregon and many more have 90 per cent-plus recycling rates because their governments legislate that consumers must have easy access to collection points — and therefore their refund.

The highest levels of convenience come when consumers can access collection points close to retail centres, as part of their day-to-day routine. But when Coca-Cola runs the scheme, like in SA, Queensland and now WA, they mandate manual depots only, in light-industrial zones that are inconvenient for consumers to get to.

For the sake of 10c, a lot of people don’t bother, so the scheme costs the consumer but not drink producers, and this suits Coke down to the ground. NSW has set up a significantly more convenient scheme than Queensland, bringing large retailers like Woolworths and Coles on board voluntarily. These supermarkets host collection points in around 300 of their car parks across the state.

Queensland and WA both had the option of having similar supermarket-based collection networks — and therefore consumer convenience — but the Coca-Cola controlled scheme co-ordinators blocked this.

So, people in NSW go shopping and then recycle their containers at the same time. No extra trips, no extra greenhouse gas emissions and higher rates of recycling. But Tassie can do better still.

We’ve got the chance to design and run Australia’s most convenient and cost-effective container refund scheme — we could even reintroduce refillable bottles in Tasmania!

The NSW scheme has as much charity sector involvement as any other. Vinnies, for example, has six large scale automated depots.

We need this mix. Depots for large volume drop-offs and supermarket sites for day to day; charity sector involvement and the professional recycling industry also.

Tasmania’s adoption of a container deposit scheme is a massive opportunity to rid our coastline and rivers of plastic rubbish, and will be in place for the next 30 to 50 years or longer, a true legacy issue for Minister Jaensch and Premier Gutwein.

So, the government has a choice to make. Do we mandate a low-performing Coke controlled scheme which is a costly hassle for consumers, or a scheme that is consumer-friendly and achieves high recycling rates?

Hobart’s Robert Kelman is contracted to European Union organisation the Reloop Platform working to reduce single-use plastics and on refund schemes. He has been involved in the development of NSW, Queensland and Western Australia container refund schemes.