Ms BURNET -I just wanted to talk about the Container Deposit Scheme which you announced today. It’s been almost eight years since the Leader of the Greens moved a motion in the House pointing out that Tasmania and Victoria were yet to introduce a CDS. Victoria did, and your government has been announcing a Container Deposit Scheme regularly for five years now. It’s really quite embarrassing that Tasmania is the last state to be implementing such a scheme when it does occur. Even today on the website, one of the scheme’s operators, TOMRA, congratulates minister Jaensch and the Gutwein government on the announcement of CDS rolling out in 2022. Why should anyone believe that we will get this and why has it taken so long? Is the delay partly because it’s been sitting with the lawyers of TasRecycle, Coca Cola, Euro Pacific, and Lion?
Mr DUIGAN – I appreciate your question and thank you for your interest in the Container Deposit Refund Scheme. I think it’s good and we are pleased to be progressing it. I do accept that the contract negotiations have been long and protracted. They have been. I’m relying on my memory here, but I believe there were something in the order of 233 deviations in the contract as it was first proposed, so it has been a substantial job of work. Again, I take the opportunity to thank the people that have progressed the work. There have been lawyers at either end of these contract negotiations and I am happy to pass to the Secretary to provide you with some more detail around this, but I’m pleased that we are here and we do have some firm expectations around commencement in the mobilisation phase.
Mr JACOBI – This is without doubt the most complex contractual arrangement that I’ve ever experienced. The split nature of the scheme between the Scheme Coordinator and the Network Operator has required significant negotiations. To be honest, it really has boiled down to the contractual arrangements between the state and the Scheme Operator and the contractual agency between the state and the Network Operator and how those two contracts intersect to deliver a seamless Container Refund Scheme. I do, as the minister has already stated, give credit to my team who have done an extraordinary job, spending well over 12 months negotiating the nth detail of every single clause in the contracts to make sure that this state and the public of Tasmania get the very best from this scheme, and that we realise the outcomes that were envisioned from this project.
Ms BURNET – My follow-up question is: since we will be the last state in Australia to introduce the scheme and we have other states, such as New South Wales – I think it’s mostly based on New South Wales’ model. It’s just unbelievable that it takes so long. I hear your frustration. But what have we learnt from other jurisdictions? For instance, there is talk that a 10-cent deposit may not be really getting that 90 per cent return rate. So what have you learnt from other jurisdictions in relation to this?
Mr DUIGAN – Specifically to that, independent reviews of the New South Wales and Queensland schemes show that in the first year, consumer price increases were less than the contribution amount charged by the scheme. So that’s good news. I think what we’re seeing broadly in other states is container returns in the mid-60 per cent range We’re hoping that in Tasmania, certainly in the initial stages, the expectation is that they increase over time.
We have the project manager here in the room, so I’m happy to invite Penny to comment.
Mr JACOBI – Through you, minister – as Penny’s coming to the table – I think one of the benefits of being last is that we have been able to learn from the mistakes that have been made. We’ve gained considerable experience and knowledge from New South Wales and Queensland. Victoria, as you’re probably aware, are in the sort of final throes of their implementation and operationalisation of their scheme, and there have been learnings that have come forward the whole way.
Mr DUIGAN – Thank you. Chair, I introduce to the table Penny Stoltz, Strategic Project and Policy Manager.
Ms STOLTZ – Thank you. There have been a range of learnings that we’ve taken from all the different jurisdictions where these schemes are currently operating. There are almost too many to go into individually, but we have been very cognisant to try to learn all those lessons as we’ve been going along. One example is the mobilisation period. That was very contracted in New South Wales, and it caused a few operational issues, so we’ve tried to choose an appropriate amount of time for our mobilisation to avoid some of those pitfalls.
There are other learnings we’ve had, just the administrative workings between the different operators in the state for how we process things. Things along those lines. There’s been a range of national work done through the HEPA – Heads of EPA – committee about the behavioural interactions with the schemes as well. I think the report on that has just been released in a redacted way on the South Australian EPA website – we can provide you a link for that as well – and that specifically looked at that 10-cent refund and whether or not moving that up to a higher amount would have any impact. It also looked at a whole range of other factors as well that influence –
Ms BURNET – I guess it has to cover costs for the operators, as well. Everybody who’s involved. This output of 60 per cent seems very low to me. What’s the standard across other jurisdictions?
CHAIR – Can questions please be directed through the minister?
Ms BURNET – Yes, sorry. Minister, to you.
Mr DUIGAN – Thank you, and I will respectfully pass the question to Penny.
Ms STOLTZ – Thank you. The refund redemption rates in other states tend to be between 63-67 per cent. I guess that’s a result of the type of model that’s been chosen across Australia. The return-to-retail model that operates in Europe structurally can provide higher redemption rates. But, that being said, the redemption rates in South Australia are a lot higher, and that’s probably a result of the longer term they’ve been there, that intergenerational thing. So there is potential scope for these schemes to produce higher redemption rates over time.
Mr DUIGAN – It would be my expectation that Tasmania will be pretty good at recycling their cans. I’m sure you’ve all had representations from various groups about when this is happening and identifying it as a viable revenue stream. I think people are keen to see it up and going.
Mrs BESWICK – Minister, considering the EPA currently holds an ultimate authority on a wide range of development projects and the government is looking to make efficiencies, what specific measures are the government contemplating to streamline the assessment processes? What steps is the government taking to make to guarantee that will still maintain these rigorous standards that we have?
Mr DUIGAN – In terms of things that I’m contemplating or delivering notably through the Energy and Renewables portfolio is the renewable energies approvals pathway. It’s probably not relevant to be talking to it here under Parks and Environment, but it’s one of the key things that we would seek to do to shepherd large scale developments through the potential labyrinth of the approvals pathways that governments require. I note that Tasmania has high standards when it comes to our environmental approvals and that’s as it should be. We’re not about to start rubber stamping anything. Giving levels of certainty around what is required as you potentially enter the approvals pathways is an important place to start so that the goal posts aren’t moving around you as you contemplate that.
A sound environmental protection framework is obviously vital to government’s plans for sustainable economic growth. As with all legislation, we’re happy to consider issues as they arise and assess them on their merit. We don’t consider the act, in principle, as not doing its job, and as such we’re not planning a wholesale change to the act.
This budget has increased staffing in key positions in both environmental assessment and the scientific and technical area, which has allowed the EPA to deal with the increasing number of projects submitted to the authority for statutory assessment by the board. There are a number of things government is doing to help move that process along.
Ms BURNET – More questions on the container deposits scheme. The scheme coordinator, TasRecycle, was set up by Coca‑Cola and Lion, two of the largest drink producers in the world and they lobbied against the container deposit scheme introduction for years. On what basis were they selected as coordinator of the scheme and what alternatives were considered?
Mr DUIGAN – Thank you, I believe beverage producers are involved in all schemes across the country as very interested parties. For the processes to select our scheme coordinator, I pass to the Secretary.
Mr JACOBI – I will call Penny Stoltz back to the table. The tender process was subject to the highest levels of scrutiny and probity. We had an independent probity advisor on the panel who provided advice to the procurement team all the way through. That was really important in the context of some of the issues that you’ve raised. I will pass to Penny.
Ms STOLTZ – For the record, there are three beverage companies that are members of TasRecycle: Lion, Coca‑Cola, and Asahi.
Ms BURNET – And Asahi, yes, thank you.
Ms STOLTZ – An open tender process took place in two parts for both the scheme coordinator and network operator. There was initially an expression of interest, followed by a request for tender, then the regular evaluation process took place as part of the procurement process and they were evaluated as being best value for money.
Ms BURNET – A follow‑up question. Minister, this is a really important scheme, as we’re all aware, to get right. I want to know what sort of management there is of the scheme and their progress, so going back to the outputs or their performance indicators of delivering the best scheme in Australia.
Mr DUIGAN – I guess the design of the scheme coordinator and the network operator being comprised of beverage companies who put containers into the market, noting that every one of those containers that comes into our market – despite a few vagaries around that little ‑ has the scheme contribution amount contained within it. There is a bit of commercial tension for the network operator to get as many containers as it possibly can because it’s not exposed to the cost of that. It does work well from that point of view, if we have sufficient deposit points. We are committed to 49, which gives a pretty good spread and covers King and Flinders Islands and gets us out and about in the regions. It covers the major centres as well. We are well placed to have this being a very well subscribed CRS. I’m looking forward to it. We expect to see good numbers coming back.
