Mr GAFFNEY - I am pleased. Mr President, I rise to voice my support for the Container Refund Scheme Bill. The outpouring of community debate on this issue has been significant. I thank all members of the community and broader organisations who shared their experiences, information and concerns on this matter.

Firstly, I draw attention to the extensive research and consultation that has gone into the development of the bill, the ministerial advisory council and expert reference group, comprised of representatives from the beverage retail and hospitality industries, the waste and recycling sector, local government and environmental groups and charities.

The proposed split responsibility model would see the scheme being run by an independent network operator and a scheme coordinator. Both are incentivised to increase return rates and ensure correct auditing respectively. As they are contracted directly to the government, all additional costs associated with subcontracting, as well as risks of conflict of interest, are eliminated.

The model is very close, or virtually the same as, the container deposit scheme that has been implemented in New South Wales. For the purpose of this speech, I will be referring to New South Wales as a comparative jurisdiction if we are to implement the split responsibility model.

Return-It is an Australian company that specialises in recycling and resource recovery, handling over 1.5 million containers per day. They are the network operator for the Australian Capital Territory container scheme, as well as a major operator across Queensland and Western Australia. For this reason, they are well placed to offer their knowledge on the effectiveness of the split responsibility model.

CEO of Return-It, Marc Churchin amidst other comments, noted that:

Under the split responsibility model, government, not the beverage industry, is empowered by its procurement of the network operator to set the priorities and select providers it believes will deliver the best community outcomes.

As elected representatives of the community, government is naturally better placed to determine the best interests of the community than representatives of one sector.

Such a model empowers the Government to set minimum standards. For example, under the New South Wales split model, the network operator is required to have around 450 collection points across the state at a full-time capacity, which they have exceeded to have 627. This may be contrasted to Queensland under the alternate model of only 309 collection points that only operate on three weekdays. This speaks to another common theme from members of the community reaching out to members of the Legislative Council. The split responsibility model is the only way forward to prevent significant conflicts of interest.

Under the alternative model there is no incentive for the beverage industry to create a convenient collection network. Accessibility and community engagement are the two most important indicators of the success of the scheme. Putting the appropriateness of the split responsibility model aside for a moment, the time of the commencement of this bill is another point of passion in the community.
Legislative implementation of a container refund scheme is long overdue in Tasmania, with Victoria the only other state in Australia yet to implement a container refund scheme. Tasmania is already lagging behind. The Boomerang Alliance represents 56 national, state and local environment-based non-government organisations. In their media release, director of the Boomerang Alliance, Jeff Angel, spoke of his frustration, indeed, many Tasmanians' frustrations, that after more than 20 years of waiting, the container refund scheme has been delayed by the request for an inquiry. The Boomerang Alliance was supported by statements made by the Australian Council of Recycling, who raised their concerns the potential delay for a parliamentary inquiry was unnecessary.

The WorldWide Fund for Nature flagged their concern even the smallest delay will make Tasmania the last jurisdiction in Australia to implement a container scheme, with Victoria set to commence their own in 2023. City Mission, the Tasmanian Council of Social Service, the Local Government Association Tasmania, 56 environment groups, the Boomerang Alliance and a number of peak waste and recycling industry groups are all examples of community groups that do not support an inquiry.

As an example of a community sentiment, Trish Haeusler of Plastic Free Launceston cited their group of dedicated volunteers had removed in excess of 1000 beverage containers from a single creek in the last six months. Trish, alongside other Tasmanians, emphasised the impact of plastics as they degrade our soils, air, waterways and marine environment. Any postponement of this legislation would mean that such groups would continue to operate at a financial loss and continue to see their local environment polluted.

The outpouring of community support for the split responsibility model is palpable. We must balance the importance of creating legislation which benefits the community with doing it in a timely manner. With the extensive community and expert consultation already undertaken, I see no reason to delay providing this incredibly needed service to the Tasmanian public. Best practice container refund schemes tell us ease of access to deposit sites and facilities is integral for the effective uptake of the scheme in the broader community. The proposed scheme would see at least 40 direct refund points across Tasmania, in addition to charities and community groups being able to act as secondary destination drop-off points to further increase accessibility.

This possibility of revenue generation for charities and community organisations has been highlighted as a particularly welcome aspect of the legislation. For example, the St Vincent de Paul Society and Scouts Tasmania have formed an alliance to work together to collect recyclables so the proceeding profits may be used to give back to the broader Tasmanian community. St Vincent de Paul Society's CEO, Lara Alexander, said Tasmanians are currently discarding millions of dollars' worth of containers that could be recycled into donations to assist community groups, feed and clothe people in need and reduce thousands of tons of litter and waste going into landfill.

For reference, the split responsibility model implemented in New South Wales has returned over a phenomenal $12 million to charities and community groups since the commencement of their container refund scheme. She further highlighted that by centralising a container refund scheme it frees charities to focus their time on core activities, such as building better communities and assisting the most vulnerable in our society.

Contrary to some claims made among certain groups and communities, the experiences of jurisdictions such as New South Wales show minimal impact on the retail cost of containers. It only added 7.7 per cent increase in the first 12 months. The benefits that would be provided to the broader community in terms of revenue raising will well outweigh this minimal impact on pricing.

If we look on the bright side of how far behind Tasmania is in implementing legislation to support recycling compared to the rest of Australia, we may take comfort and take advantage of having the benefit of hindsight. The CEO of the Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia stated that, to drive accessibility and community engagement, a strong scheme requires a recycling driven approach to collection points, where that governance body establishing and administering the scheme is not conflicted by a primary objective of minimising costs to beverage suppliers.

The proposed split responsibility model is the best format and it is unnecessary for us to undertake further parliamentary inquiry into whether a split model is the best format for Tasmania. We already know the efficacy of the proposed model as we have seen similar schemes undertaken across South Australia, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

We know from observing other jurisdictions across Australia the implementation of this legislation will take at least nine months to roll out across the state. As an extension upon this if we delay voting on this bill until early 2022 by sending this bill to a committee, we will be sending a message to Tasmanians we are not listening to their concerns. We will be sending a message they will have to wait until at least 2023 to see a tangible outcome of the container refund scheme.

An additional year is too long. As I have previously stated, this is a change many Tasmanians have been waiting for decades to see come to fruition. I hope this will be another step putting Tasmania in line with best practice with a view to protect our invaluable wilderness and local environments, support our community to build revenue and expand services. For these reasons I give my full support to the Container Refund Scheme Bill.