Devil in the detail of deposit deal

Peter McGlone asks whether putting drink manufacturers in charge of Tassie’s container deposit scheme is like giving a fox the top job in a henhouse

THE not-for-profit group Tas Recycling wants the job of designing and running Tasmania’s longawaited container deposit scheme.

Its public pitch for the critical role was made in the Mercury by Jeff Maguire, (“Can-do community recycling scheme means more jobs and revenue”, Talking Point, January 28).

Mr Maguire argues the case for Tas Recycling, which represents a coalition of Coca Cola Amatil and Lion Co.

I think it is important that Coca Cola, Lion and other businesses that produce or sell containers are involved in Tasmania’s container deposit scheme when it is established in 2022 — but I am just as sure they must not be in charge of designing and running it.

Mr Maguire might be new to Tasmania and may not have heard about the Forest Protection Society, which was set up many years ago and funded by the forest industry.

The Forest Protection Society claimed to be an independent advocate for forests, forestry employees and forestry towns, but it existed solely to do the bidding of the big logging companies.

In the same way, I fear that Tas Recycling is representing the big beverage companies.

Mr McGuire’s claim that Tas Recycling is a not-forprofit organisation, while technically true, will not convince many Tasmanians.

I reckon their views will mirror exactly those of Coca Cola and Lion.

Mr McGuire says the beverage industry wants to take responsibility, to ensure their containers are recycled and do not end up as litter.

However, to these companies it is actually worth a lot of money to make sure there are less bottles returned for refund.

They actually benefit from bottles going into landfill.

The fewer containers returned means fewer people get the 10c deposit back, while the beverage companies have received the benefit of the 10c higher sale price.

Multiply 10c by billions and it adds up to millions of dollars in savings per year.

Another reason companies like Coca Cola and Lion should not be in charge of the container deposit scheme is that they may support recycling at some level but they probably will not support any proposals to reduce the consumption of bottled drinks or to encourage bottle reuse.

Into the future, we must be open reducing consumption per person and increasing the reuse of bottles, as well as recycling.

Remember it is “Reduce, Reuse and Recycle”, in that order.

Tasmania should have a container deposit scheme that involves supermarkets, bottle shops and other shops who sell bottled beverages — this is critical to its success.

In other states these types of places contribute greatly by hosting collection depots.

The manufacturers of the bottled beverages can assist by promoting schemes and adding information to bottle labels. But the key role of designing and running a scheme should be at armslength from the companies.

Mr McGuire argues that his alliance Tas Recycling should be given the job of establishing and running Tasmania’s scheme and refers to their preferred model as the Can Do Community Recycling Scheme. This is contrasted in his Talking Point article with the NSW model, which he calls the For Profit Big Waste Scheme.

For a moment when I read it, I thought he was suggesting the NSW approach resulted in more waste but he is referring to the big waste management companies that run it.

Now I don’t necessarily think a container deposit scheme has to be run by either a beverage manufacturer or waste management company.

There could be others, but one clear advantage of a waste management company establishing and running a scheme is that they have a powerful profit motive to maximise the amount and range of containers that are returned and recycled.

The more containers, the greater the efficiency and profitability of the recycling businesses. They can also be counted on to be willing to increase the deposit if this is required to increase recycling.