AACS CAUTIONS AGAINST PROPOSED CONTAINER TAX

June 13 2014
As a decision on the proposed National Container Deposit Scheme draws closer, the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores (AACS) has warned businesses, consumers and local Governments around the country of the potentially huge economic damage and negative environmental impacts of what is essentially just another tax.
The proposed scheme essentially involves attaching an additional cost to the purchase of a container, such as those in which beverages are typically sold, and which are already recycled en masse throughout the country.
AACS CEO Jeff Rogut said the introduction of a container tax creates significant imposts on both beverage suppliers and retailers themselves.
“Our industry is comprised predominantly of small businesses and it is unreasonable and unfair to expect these businesses to bear the burden of lost sales and increased costs associated with another tax, particularly when the environmental benefits are non-existent,” Mr Rogut said.
“Beverages are the second biggest sales category for convenience stores, and stores themselves are an important sector for beverage manufacturers. In the context of the capacity for small businesses to compete with the major supermarket chains, any imposts like this proposed tax are going to be a competitive disadvantage in an already challenging market,” he said.
According to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), a container tax would impose a huge cost on the economy, with estimates indicating it would have a net cost at between $1.41 and $1.76 billion. This is at least 25 times more expensive than an industry-funded proposal that would deliver similar environmental benefits, according to COAG’s analysis.
Further, according to economics policy strategist ACIL Tasman, a container tax is likely to lead to the loss of 1,673 jobs a year around Australia, mainly in the manufacturing sector but also in distribution and retail.
Mr Rogut said the scheme may also require retailers to set aside space otherwise used for trading purposes to collect and sort containers, creating additional cost burdens and turning stores into mini waste depots.
“To purposely create competition for the kerbside recycling service already provided and already proven to be effective seems not only unnecessary but potentially damaging to the environment,” Mr Rogut said.
“The fact that small businesses, including suppliers and retailers, are the ones set to bear the financial brunt makes the proposed tax even more ridiculous.
“The plain truth is there is simply no environmental upside to a container tax and we urge retailers, suppliers and consumers to voice their concerns about this unnecessary tax,” Mr Rogut said.