Drink container deposit schemes !

That hoary old chestnut - legislating a refundable deposit on all types of drink containers is again causing rumbling in the New South Wales parliament.   Some see it as a way of reducing the appalling amount of litter we leave behind at any social event, while others see it as helping the ecology by making recycling more attractive.

If the government does choose to implement a mandatory deposit scheme it would be wise to think it through from all angles.  When we last had such an arrangement in this state it applied to glass cordial bottles and the shop selling them was required to refund the deposit and store the bottles when they were returned.   The law was vague, and some retailers would only refund bottles bought from their store.

The scheme fell into disuse - because most people simply declined to go to the trouble of returning bottles for a refund.  In particular, school kids decided that it was not " cool " to be seen returning bottles and this enraged many parents.   They were forever whining for more pocket money, but refused to do a simple task that would swell their wallets.

This time around the refund suggestion is twenty cents per item - and that is enough to gain the interest of the unemployed.   Picking up five beer cans for a dollar or taking a stroll beachside with a  rubbish bag to collect plastic cordial bottles could become a useful adjunct to the dole, but it could also create a new problem.

We already have the wheelie bin system in place and residents are encouraged to recycle all types of glass and plastic bottles, plus aluminium beer cans in the yellow top bins.   Many people will not avail themselves of the rewards from a deposit system and we could see the unemployed rummaging through bins on rubbish night to reclaim this loot - leaving behind a scattered mess of other rubbish.

A refundable deposit will not be popular with shop keepers if they are legally obliged to participate in the scheme.   Storage and security would be a problem, and then there is the time lost and wages paid to administer it.   It seems certain that this cost would be passed on to consumers, either by an initial higher margin on the product sold or a reluctance to stock products within the scope of the scheme.

South Australia has had such a scheme in place for many years and we could learn a lot by studying the highs and lows.of their experience.  A lot will depend on whether we intend to slap a deposit on all forms of liquid containers - and that includes milk and other dairy products, or whether it's range will be limited to wine, beer and soft drink bottles and cans..

The " Clean up Australia " people could probably accurately nominate the prime targets - because they record what they collect on clean-up day !