Higher deposit needed on beer bottles

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33774, 21 February 1975, Page 12

Higher deposit needed on beer bottles

If the Department of Trade and Industry continues to refuse permission for the licensed trade to increase the deposit charged on beer bottles it should offer better reasons than any which have been put forward so far. At least 200 million beer bottles are believed to be in use in New Zealand: more than 90 per cent of them are returned through collecting agencies and most are used again. An improvement of even 1 per cent in the rate of return would mean that two million fewer bottles are lying about as potentially dangerous litter. The deposit and refund on large soft drink bottles is up to 10c in some parts of New Zealand; the deposit on quart beer bottles remains 15c a dozen. The breweries have been prevented from increasing the deposit to 3c a bottle: a new application may be made by the breweries for an increase up to 7c a bottle. In fact, an increase to 10c a bottle should be quite acceptable and practicable in a community which is becoming increasingly aware of the need to avoid the litter of discarded containers.

Even drunken persons might hesitate to break or discard bottles as freely as they sometimes do now if the return value of four or five bottles — instead of 40 or 50 — was enough to buy another full bottle. To begin with, bottle collecting agents would require more capital to finance the higher repayments for bottles bought at a low deposit. Ultimately the breweries would have to finance the cost of placing a higher value on empty bottles in the hands of consumers and collectors at the time of the change in deposit. The cost of this extra capital — that is the interest on borrowing the several million dollars that would undoubtedly be required for a month or two — would certainly be passed on to consumers. To do so the breweries might be able to justify a price increase slightly above the increase in the deposit: but the amount would be very small. When the cycle of sales, collection, and re-use of bottles at the new price had been completed no additional expense would be incurred. Once the higher deposit was established, it would become a significant source of extra funds for those involved in the sale of bottled beer. Even if 99 per cent of all bottles were returned each year, the missing million or so bottles would represent a recurring gain of some $lOO,OOO in unclaimed deposits. To some wholesalers and retailers of bottled beer who do not receive many bottles back from their customers a temporary windfall would seem to accrue from the higher deposit on bottles of beer held in stock. This addition to their funds would soon be absorbed by the higher cost of replacing stocks. The ingenuity of the trade and the Government should be sufficient to devise a fair means of overcoming financial complications, and the borrowing of the necessary extra capital should be favoured by the Government At most, an increase in the charge for bottled beer would be a compulsory interest-free loan asked for from consumers of bottled beer as a token of their concern for the New Zealand countryside. Viewed in this way. a high bottle deposit should have universal support.