European Success Proves Australia’s 10c Container Refund Falls Shamefully Short

Ten cents doesn’t buy much these days—except maybe a cleaner Australia. The nation’s container deposit scheme, stuck at this measly dime since South Australia pioneered it in 1977, has become a proof of bureaucratic inertia. Nearly five decades later, that same ten cents remains unchanged, ignoring inflation, rising operational costs, and the stark reality that European nations offer their citizens far more generous refunds for doing the right thing.

The numbers tell a story of missed opportunity. Over 13 billion containers have been returned nationwide, with New South Wales residents collecting $1.3 billion in refunds. South Australia processed 663 million containers in 2023-24 alone. Impressive figures, sure. But here’s the twist: suppliers pay more than ten cents per container—Victoria charges them 12.3 cents, while the ACT demands up to 16.36 cents for aluminum containers. That extra money? It vanishes into administrative costs and scheme operations, never reaching the consumers who actually do the recycling.

The scheme supports industries worth $127 billion annually and over 274,000 jobs. Great. But it’s built on the backs of consumers who pay inflated beverage prices—up to 10.1 cents more per non-alcoholic drink—while receiving the same tired ten-cent refund their parents got in the seventies. Meanwhile, European countries like Germany offer 25 cents, Norway provides up to 30 cents, and Denmark gives 22 cents per container. Their redemption rates? Through the roof. A 2012 Newspoll survey showed the majority of Australians actually support expanding the deposit scheme, yet their voices remain unheard. This sluggish progress stands in stark contrast to the renewable energy sector, where annual growth rates of 17.23% demonstrate what properly incentivized environmental initiatives can achieve.

Australia’s redemption rates are “reportedly high,” especially for aluminum. But imagine how much higher they’d climb if the refund actually meant something in today’s economy. The government wrings its hands about marginal economic impacts of increasing the refund value, yet suppliers already charge consumers more than the refund amount. The math doesn’t add up.

State and territory governments regulate this archaic system, with national harmonization proposals gathering dust. Each jurisdiction tinkers with supplier fees and administrative structures while the core problem—that pathetic ten-cent refund—remains untouched. It’s a scheme that’s technically successful but fundamentally outdated, a relic from an era when ten cents could actually buy something worthwhile.