Australian grocers leader slams ‘misleading’ environmental campaign

The AGFC alleges that the petition prepared by the Boomerang Alliance, which is made up of 27 green groups, failed to mention that to get a 10 cent deposit back, consumers would likely have to hand over up to 20 cents at the cash register.

AFGC CEO Gary Dawson said: “The environmental lobby advocates a system that will cost consumers at the checkout​. Nowhere in the world is there a drink container deposit scheme that is free to consumers.​ 

New taxes​

“This environmental group is lobbying for a new tax on glass and plastic drink containers, which will push up an average family’s grocery bills by more than A$300 a year​."

“All Australians need to know that the Council of Australian Governments has found the cost of this scheme will be up to A$1.76 billion to the economy​.”

The Boomerang Group has not yet responded to Dawson’s claims.

The AGFC is often the first to shout its opposition to container deposits whenever such schemes are mooted. In their place, it says, the food and grocery industry should be allowed to look after recycling itself.

Industry alternative​

Earlier this year, Dawson said his members were ready to roll out an industry-funded A$100m scheme that he claimed would have better results than container deposits. 

"The industry wants more recycling and less litter and we have a plan to deliver it at no cost to consumers. That's the plan that Australia needs and wants, not an inconvenient and costly drinks container tax​."

In 2009, the Packaging Stewardship Forum commissioned a survey of 1,400 Australians in a bid to understand attitudes towards, and support for, container recycling. This included opinions towards a container deposit scheme and the community’s reception for an alternative “out and about” or away-from-home recycling scheme without the need to collect and return a deposit. 

At a 95% confidence level, 68 per cent% of all respondents preferred the away-from-home approach.