Tender the right way to go on Tassie’s container deposit scheme

Gayle Sloan applauds the state government for not bowing to pressure from lobbyists, and for going with a split-model scheme

THE beverage industry’s whingeing that Tasmania’s proposed split-model container deposit scheme will deter community participation distracts from what the scheme is — a polluters-pay model.

The scheme will offer new revenue streams for local business, community and charities. It will reduce litter and create a clean material stream for remanufacturing. It will be publicly tendered, meaning all parties have a go at participating.

So, what’s the issue? Let’s step back and think this through, instead of being swayed by misinformation.

Firstly, community groups, sporting clubs and charities are not being sidelined, nor will it be harder for them to make money. There will be money in the pot and chances for these groups, just as there are in all Australian schemes that already have significant social enterprise involvement.

The ACT led the way in this regard, pioneering a model that birthed great innovation (an “Uber” for cans is in the pipeline) and social enterprise involvement, which was followed by other jurisdictions.

For it to be successful — one measure of success being collection volumes — we need a high level of community engagement. It must be accessible to all Tasmanians.

There is no one-size-fits-all scheme, and there is no one industry (beverage or recycling) that has an automatic right to run this scheme, particularly when there are commercial interests on both sides.

A successful scheme will be accessible, drive recycling, reduce litter, provide income for Tasmanians, and create a remanufacturing sub-sector that uses Australian recycled containers.

We can only get there if the inherent conflict of interest associated with higher container return rates is managed. And it will be through a split-model scheme, giving it the best chance at accessibility and effectiveness, as well as the generation of new money for the consumer, charities, sporting groups, infrastructure investment, new sectors, and new local jobs.

All schemes to-date have a head contractor to deliver and manage network operations,

the difference is some states tendered this role and some did not. In Tasmania, the government wants its split model to be publicly tendered. Surely this is a good thing that ensures transparency in the process and allows all parties to participate? Or are we suggesting we simply hand the scheme over to one party with, as noted above, commercial interests, just because they’re making the loudest noise?

Next, do the NSW and ACT schemes really pale in comparison to other states as the beverage industry claims? The short answer is no, not if we want to meet the objectives of a successful scheme. In NSW, the cost per container is lower than in Queensland, however the overall amount paid out (refund) is higher as there are more containers redeemed. It follows that the more returns you have, the more the overall costs will be.

All schemes generate significant new money and high value streams of material that we can recycle in Australia. These schemes are part of a polluters-pay policy that makes sense when one considers the amount of beverage containers represented in the litter stream which other programs have not been able to address.

Container deposit schemes have had longstanding success in Europe for decades.

Let’s move forward and get on with the design and tender process. This scheme will live in the Tasmanian community for years so we need a fair, balanced, and effective model. No one group has the right to run it and the state government should be congratulated for having the community’s interest at heart, holding firm and not acquiescing to pressure from interest groups. Want a piece of the action? Put in a bid in the public tender.