Tassie is on track for recycling
The government model for a container deposit scheme is the right one for Tassie’s environment and community, says James Dorney
IT is an exciting time for all Tasmanians with a Container Refund Scheme (CRS) to be rolled out across the state next year. A CRS will reduce litter and boost recycling, as well as bringing multiple flow-on benefits to the community and economy.
The Tasmanian government is to be commended for choosing the “split responsibility” CRS design.
Furthermore, Tasmanians can be reassured there is no “sting in the tail” as suggested by Ben Kearney of TasRecycle (formed by Lion and Coca-Cola Amatil) in his recent Talking Point (August 19).
As CEO of the NSW network operator, I wanted to share some key facts: Ultimately, the most important measure of the success of a CRS is the rates of return for drink containers. The higher the rates of return, the better for the environment.
The higher the rates of return, the more opportunities there are for charities and community groups to participate.
NSW operates a “split responsibility” model and was the first scheme in Australia to actively engage a wide range of charities and community groups as partner operators.
Mr Kearney’s piece talks a lot about charity involvement, but it fails to mention NSW has more charities, community groups and small business operators involved than any other scheme in Australia.
What’s more, of the largest 20 collection sites (by volume) in NSW, 17 are operated by charities, community groups and small businesses.
I’m proud that the services provided in NSW makes participation in the scheme easy for charity and small business operators, with straightforward systems and ongoing administrative and technical support.
NSW offers opportunities and formats to hundreds of smaller collection partners that simply are not available to similar groups in Queensland.
As for handling fees, the formats in NSW that are comparable to those available in Queensland are paid a very similar handling fee, despite the simpler operations and administration. This all adds up to greater profits for charities and small businesses.
Readers might ask why Big Beverage has created organisations like TasRecycle (and indeed VicRecycle in Victoria). The answer is simple: money.
Beverage companies can save millions of dollars each year by keeping return rates down and avoiding paying refunds. This means a low performing scheme, with less recycling where Tasmanians pay the price.
The Tasmanian government has rightly gone for a model that manages the
Big Beverage conflict of interest and prioritises the environment and community, tendering an independent network operator to run a system that serves the government and the community’s objectives.
There is no “middle man”, as claimed by Mr Kearney. There is instead a separation of responsibilities for the benefit of the scheme.
If further evidence is needed, the (publicly available) annual reports compare the performances of schemes in both NSW and QLD, and these demonstrate the NSW scheme has collected containers at a lower cost to consumers than the QLD scheme.
The “split responsibility” model in NSW has also delivered demonstrably higher rates of return for drink containers.
And here is the crux of the issue. Tasmania’s CRS aligns the interests of all parties with the primary objective: increasing recycling rates, thereby generating the best environmental, community and economic outcomes.
James Dorney is CEO of TOMRA Cleanaway which runs the NSW container deposit scheme.