It’s a block of text almost ubiquitous on every bottle or can of drink that Australians buy: “10c refund at collection depots in participating state/territory of purchase.”
More than 7bn bottles and cans were returned under the schemes last year, but conservationists and the recycling industry have told Guardian Australia that on an individual level, the schemes are underperforming. Some blame the 10c refund rate, and argue it should be doubled.
Analysis carried out by organisations in the recycling industry shows that “return rates” – the percentage of eligible containers returned for recycling – are well below successful schemes in Europe.
“The best word you could use is average,” says Jeff Angel on the performance of Australia’s schemes. Angel is a veteran campaigner on plastics and the director of the Boomerang Alliance of 56 environment groups.
“The national return rate is about 65% and that’s leaving billions of containers going to landfill or litter,” he says.
The Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation – a not-for-profit focused on reducing packaging waste and increasing recycling – estimates that in the financial year 2022-23, some 2.7bn cans and bottles eligible for the refund likely ended up in landfill.
Top performers
Last month Tasmania launched its own container deposit scheme, making Australia the first continent to be completely covered by the programs, which are aimed at boosting recycling rates and reducing litter and plastics leaking into the environment.
In Europe, the best performing schemes in countries such as Finland, Lithuania and Slovakia have return rates above 90%, with Germany’s at 98%, analysis from recycling services company Tomra says.
But what they all have in common, Angel says, are higher deposit amounts of between 17 and 43 cents.
Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter
Angel, alongside recycling and waste management industry groups, is preparing to launch a campaign targeting politicians to get the deposit rate in Australia doubled to 20c.
“The argument should not be if, but when,” he says. “It’s obvious to us that policymakers know that the refund has to increase, but we have a political problem that we have not been able to get states and ministers to move.”
He says the campaign would look to “mobilise” supporters, including local councils and the recycling and waste management industry.
Debate over 10c rate
South Australia’s scheme started in 1977, followed by the Northern Territory in 2012.
Since then, all other states and territories have launched their own schemes, most recently Victoria’s CDS Vic scheme in 2023 and Tasmania’s Recycle Rewards program launched last month.
The deposit paid on the containers – and what can be recouped if they’re returned – has sat at 10c since South Australia doubled its deposit from 5c to 10c in 2008. Allowing for inflation, 10c in 2008 is worth about 15c today.
Chris Gingell is the vice-president of public affairs for the Pacific region at Tomra, a Norway-based company that provides reverse vending machines and collection services in most state and territory schemes.
“It’s a deposit [the consumer] has paid and by not returning it, they’re forfeiting that 10c. But it’s obvious – 10c is fast becoming less and less of an incentive for people to return the containers,” he says.
“There’s only so much that you can do to raise return rates without that financial incentive. It needs to be doubled, at least. It is the number one thing we could change that would immediately see higher return rates.”
No two schemes are organised in the same way, but generally they are paid for by the beverage industry. In 2021, state environment ministers agreed to harmonise elements of the scheme – such as labelling, deposit fees and the containers that are eligible (Queensland is the only scheme to accept wine and spirit bottles) – by the end of this year.
Gingell says in Queensland and Western Australia, the schemes are not meeting their 85% legislated target for returned containers.
after newsletter promotion
In Queensland, a parliamentary inquiry began earlier this year into its scheme, which launched in 2018.
Submissions to the inquiry show a tug-of-war between beverage industry interests who are reluctant to advocate for a higher deposit, and conservationists, recyclers, waste managers and community groups – many of which benefit from the schemes – who want to see the deposit doubled.
Coca-Cola Europacific Partners told the inquiry that its “strong view” was that raising the deposit rate would “bring pain to consumers”.
“From a public policy perspective, it is not equitable to charge consumers more for the opportunity to participate in a recycling program which was set up for their social and environmental benefit,” the company wrote.
“Ultimately, they and the beverage industry fund the deposit and an increase would necessarily translate into a more expensive shopping basket and higher costs of doing business.”
Instead, the submission said, an emphasis should be on “making it as convenient as possible for every Queenslander to participate, whether they live in a regional, remote or metropolitan location”.
Angel rejects the claim that raising the deposit would hurt consumers. He says raising the deposit would result in more cash going to community groups and charities that run their own collections. “It doesn’t impact on the cost of living because the people who want the refund can get it.”
Gingell says if containers are returned, then there is no cost to the consumer. “Some people are actually using the scheme to supplement their existing incomes,” he says.
Other steps are also being advocated to get return rates up, such as more places for people to return items. Tomra said in its submission that Australian schemes have between 11,000 and 15,000 people per collection point, compared to Malta that has 1,628 people for every point, with a deposit rate of 17c and a return rate of 80%.
Suzanne Toumbourou, the chief executive of the Australian Council of Recycling, says the container deposit schemes were an efficient way for recyclers to get “high quality feedstock” for recycling, including turning plastic bottles into materials to make more plastic bottles in Australia.
She says lower return rates meant the industry was missing out on “high value, well sorted material” like plastic and aluminium.
“Why would you not try to maximise the schemes you have?” she says. “A higher deposit rate does correlate with a higher return rate. But that’s not to say it’s the only thing – there’s also convenience, and the marketing that schemes do.”
The Guardian asked the federal environment minister, Murray Watt, if the government supported raising the deposit rate to 20c.
That question wasn’t answered, but a federal government spokesperson said the government supported state and territory “harmonisation” of schemes “to increase resource recovery and make it easier for Australian businesses to comply”.
The statement said: “States and territories are currently working together to simplify the application system for businesses to participate in the schemes, improve public uptake of the program and container returns, and ensure the schemes are as aligned as possible to drive recovery and recycling rates.”
About The Author
