Federal Court cans NT's deposit scheme
A Federal Court judge has ruled the Northern Territory's container deposit scheme is illegal under Commonwealth law.
The scheme, called Cash For Containers, forced bottlers to pay a 10 cent refund to customers who returned containers to approved depots.
Coca-Cola, Schweppes and Lion argued it breached federal law because it required different production processes for the same product in different states and territories.
The judge rejected the Territory's argument that the legislation was exempt because it was aimed at reducing environmental harm.
The decision has angered environmental groups, with Greenpeace suggesting Coca-Cola used "bullying tactics" to fight the scheme, which was introduced in the Territory by the former Labor government at the start of last year.
More than 35 million containers were returned in its first 12 months.
Following the decision, Territory Chief Minister, Terry Mills, said the fight was not over and that they would ask the beverage industry to voluntarily continue the container deposit scheme.
"This is a big blow for the Territory, it's a real setback," he said.
"This decision, handed down today will have a significant effect on grassroots community members who have enjoyed this scheme, a scheme that we support and a scheme that we'll continue to fight for its survival."
A similar scheme has operated in South Australia for many years and is not under threat because it has an exemption in the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act.
Mr Mills added that Territory will also seek an exemption through COAG (Council Of Australian Governments).
The Mutal Recognition Act states:
9 Entitlement to sell goods
The mutual recognition principle is that, subject to this Part, goods produced in or imported into the first State, that may lawfully be sold in that State either generally or in particular circumstances, may, because of this Act, be sold in the second State either generally or in particular circumstances (as the case may be), without the necessity for compliance with further requirements as described in section 10.
Coca-Cola spokesman Alec Wagstaff denies the scheme was a good way of encouraging recycling because he says it was too costly.
"In terms of why we don't support container deposits, it's quite simple: we don't think they're the best way to improve recycling in Australia," he said.
"They only address a small part of the problem and they're very expensive. Effectively they're a green tax on consumers.
"This decision means that we can move almost immediately to drop prices in the Northern Territory.
"At the same time we're very concerned to make sure that people get a chance to get back the deposits they've already paid.
"And thirdly we're very eager to work with the Government to put in place alternate arrangements to improve recycling and reduce litter in the Northern Territory."
Audio: Listen to Sara Everingham's report (PM)
Greenpeace spokesman Reece Turner says Coca-Cola Amatil has employed bullying tactics to overturn the scheme.
Mr Turner says it is clear that the company is not committed to reducing its waste in the environment.
"The number one item that we see in rivers and oceans predominantly is bottles and cans, predominantly from Coca-Cola Amatil," he said.
"With this decision today and with these bullying tactics from Coca-Cola, they've lost any semblance of any claim to sustainability measures that they once held before."
Source: ABC News, 4 March 2013
