State CDS
Accountability Audit
All 8 Australian Container Deposit Schemes ranked by their True CDS Rate — refund-point returns only, MRF kerbside data stripped out. What does the 10c incentive actually achieve?
5 of 8 coordinators include yellow-bin kerbside MRF data in their headline return rate. That data predates the CDS, requires no consumer incentive action, and inflates reported performance. This audit uses scheme-only figures only — the True CDS Rate.
67%
Reported national avg
Includes MRF padding
59.1%
True CDS avg (8 states)
Refund point returns only
~$1,242M
Annual deposit pool
10c × all eligible containers
~$573M
True unclaimed deposits
Unreturned × 10c (True CDS)
This ranking uses True CDS Rate — not the inflated figures reported by coordinators.
5 of 8 Australian CDS coordinators include kerbside MRF (yellow bin) data in their headline return rate. Yellow-bin recycling existed before the 10c deposit scheme and requires no consumer incentive action. Counting it as "scheme performance" inflates reported figures and masks genuine incentive failure.
67%
National avg reported rate
Includes MRF padding
59.1%
National avg True CDS rate
Refund point returns only
5 of 8
States padding with MRF
ACT, NSW, WA, QLD, VIC
National True CDS Performance — Annual Estimate
67%
National reported avg
Includes MRF padding — inflated
59.1%
National True CDS avg
Refund point returns only — the real number
5 of 8
States padding with MRF
Reporting inflated headline figures
~$573M
Est. unclaimed deposits p.a.
Based on True CDS rate × 10c
True CDS rate = scheme-only (refund point) returns only. MRF/kerbside excluded. All figures sourced from coordinator annual reports.
Methodology: States are ranked by a composite score using their True CDS Rate (scheme-only, refund-point returns) as the primary signal — not the MRF-inclusive headline figure. A maturity penalty applies to schemes 7+ years old that remain below the 85% target: more time to achieve the target = lower tolerance for the gap. New schemes (under 3 years) receive a trajectory bonus reflecting their habit-formation window. MRF data is noted on each card but excluded from ranking. All figures are drawn from coordinator annual reports and statutory reviews cited in the individual state audit pages — no external research used.
All 8 Schemes — True CDS Ranking
Ranked by True CDS Rate (refund-point returns only) + maturity penalty. A scheme that has had 8 years and is still at 48% ranks lower than a 1-year scheme at 52%.
Northern Territory
NTNT Container Deposit Scheme · January 2012 · 14 yrs
88%
True CDS rate
Maturity Assessment
14
years
At target on True CDS rate — the only scheme that can claim genuine success.
No MRF Padding
Reported rate is scheme-only. No kerbside MRF containers counted in headline figure.
Collection Friction: High Friction
Consumer Return Rate on Deposit Pool
$11.8M
Total deposit pool
$10.4M
Paid to consumers
$1.4M
Not returned
88.1% of the total deposit pool is returned to consumers
The NT is Australia's proof of concept. It inherited a 34% baseline from existing kerbside MRF collection and achieved rapid early growth — capturing an additional 31% in the first year (34% → 65%), then 54% by 2018 (34% → 78%), and finally reaching 88% by FY25.
South Australia
SAContainer Deposit Scheme (CDS) · 1 September 1977 · 49 yrs
75%
True CDS rate
Maturity Assessment
49
years
49 years of operation, still 10.0% below target on True CDS. Time has not solved the behavioural gap.
No MRF Padding
Reported rate is scheme-only. No kerbside MRF containers counted in headline figure.
Collection Friction: High Friction
Consumer Return Rate on Deposit Pool
$88.0M
Total deposit pool
$66M
Paid to consumers
$22.0M
Not returned
75.0% of the total deposit pool is returned to consumers
South Australia's CDS is Australia's longest-running scheme — 49 years of operation since 1977 — and the model that inspired every other Australian jurisdiction. Only British Columbia (1970) and Oregon (1971) predate it globally.
Tasmania
TASRecycle Rewards · 1 May 2025 · 1 yrs
52%
True CDS rate
Maturity Assessment
1
years
1 year old — still in habit formation. True CDS rate of 52% is expected at this stage.
No MRF Padding
Reported rate is scheme-only. No kerbside MRF containers counted in headline figure.
Collection Friction: High Friction
Consumer Return Rate on Deposit Pool
$19.2M
Total deposit pool
$10M
Paid to consumers
$9.2M
Not returned
52.1% of the total deposit pool is returned to consumers
TasRecycle inherited a 6% baseline from existing kerbside MRF collection and launched Recycle Rewards on 1 May 2025, achieving a 52% redemption rate in Year 1 — the highest first-year rate of any new Australian CDS, representing a remarkable 46% jump. Habits are actively forming, and the scheme is still growing its refund point network toward full deployment.
Western Australia
WAMRF PaddedContainers for Change · 1 October 2020 · 6 yrs
56.9%
True CDS rate
65.6% reported
reported: 65.6%
Maturity Assessment
6
years
6 years old. 28.1% below target on True CDS — mid-growth phase.
MRF Padding Detected
65.6%
Reported
− 8.7% MRF
56.9%
True CDS
WARRRL Annual Report FY2024-25: 1.551B eligible containers sold. Refund point network (scheme-only) = 882.8M returned (56.9%). MRF/kerbside = 135.5M (8.7%). Total recovery = 1.018B containers (65.6%). The reported 65.6% rate includes 8.7% from MRF kerbside — not consumer refund-point returns.
Collection Friction: Low Friction
Consumer Return Rate on Deposit Pool
$155.1M
Total deposit pool
$88.3M
Paid to consumers
$66.8M
Not returned
56.9% of the total deposit pool is returned to consumers
WARRRL inherited a 34% baseline from existing kerbside MRF collection and built a strong, innovative scheme with rapid early growth — capturing an additional 18% in just 7 months (34% → 52%), then 30% by FY23 (34% → 63.8%). These were the 'easy wins': consumers who would return containers with access.
New South Wales
NSWMRF PaddedReturn and Earn · December 2017 · 9 yrs
56%
True CDS rate
68% reported
reported: 68%
Maturity Assessment
9
years
9 years of operation, still 29.0% below target on True CDS. Time has not solved the behavioural gap.
MRF Padding Detected
68%
Reported
− 12.0% MRF
56%
True CDS
NSW Annual Report FY2024-25: Kerbside/MRF = 400M containers (12.3% of 3.24B sold). Reported 68% includes MRF; scheme-only (RVMs/depots/direct) = 56%.
Collection Friction: Mixed Friction
Consumer Return Rate on Deposit Pool
$324.0M
Total deposit pool
$220.3M
Paid to consumers
$103.7M
Not returned
68.0% of the total deposit pool is returned to consumers
Exchange for Change inherited a 13% baseline from existing kerbside MRF collection and built Australia's largest CDS by population reach with rapid early growth — capturing an additional 39% in the first year (13% → 52%), then 55% by FY20 (13% → 68%). These were the 'easy wins': consumers who would return containers with access.
Queensland
QLDMRF PaddedContainers for Change · November 2018 · 8 yrs
52%
True CDS rate
67% reported
reported: 67%
Maturity Assessment
8
years
8 years of operation, still 33.0% below target on True CDS. Time has not solved the behavioural gap.
MRF Padding Detected
67%
Reported
− 15.0% MRF
52%
True CDS
COEX FY25 Annual Report: MRF recovery facility expenses $32.129M ÷ $0.10 = ~321M containers (14.6% of 2.2B sold). Reported 67% includes MRF; scheme-only (RVMs/depots/direct) = 52%.
Collection Friction: Mixed Friction
Consumer Return Rate on Deposit Pool
$328.0M
Total deposit pool
$219.8M
Paid to consumers
$108.2M
Not returned
67.0% of the total deposit pool is returned to consumers
COEX inherited a 18% baseline from existing kerbside MRF collection and built one of Australia's most innovative CDS networks including home collection and the nation's first wine/spirit bottle scheme, with rapid early growth — capturing an additional 37% in just 7 months (18% → 55%), then 49% by FY23 (18% → 67%). These were the 'easy wins': consumers who would return containers with access.
Queensland Parliamentary Inquiry — Oct 2025
According to The Guardian (16 Oct 2025), the parliamentary inquiry found the QLD scheme "turns over nearly half a billion dollars a year, yet only 36% of this is returned to consumers, with less than 2% going to charities." Ten matters were referred to the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission.
The QLD Parliamentary Inquiry is a matter of public record. All allegations are drawn from published parliamentary committee findings and mainstream media reporting.
Australian Capital Territory
ACTMRF PaddedACT Container Deposit Scheme · June 2018 · 8 yrs
48%
True CDS rate
69% reported
reported: 69%
Maturity Assessment
8
years
8 years of operation, still 37.0% below target on True CDS. Time has not solved the behavioural gap.
MRF Padding Detected
69%
Reported
− 21.0% MRF
48%
True CDS
ACT Annual Statutory Report 2023-24: 69% = 48% network + ~21% MRF. Scheme-only ~48%.
Collection Friction: Low Friction
Consumer Return Rate on Deposit Pool
$15.8M
Total deposit pool
$10.9M
Paid to consumers
$4.9M
Not returned
69.0% of the total deposit pool is returned to consumers
Exchange for Change inherited a 9% baseline from existing kerbside MRF collection in the ACT and achieved rapid early growth — capturing an additional 49% in the first year (9% → 58%), then 60% by FY23 (9% → 69%). The 'easy wins' of infrastructure-responsive returners have been captured.
Victoria
VICMRF PaddedCDS Vic · November 2023 · 3 yrs
45%
True CDS rate
62% reported
reported: 62%
Maturity Assessment
3
years
3 years old. 40.0% below target on True CDS — mid-growth phase.
MRF Padding Detected
62%
Reported
− 17.0% MRF
45%
True CDS
CDS Vic Statutory Report FY2024-25: 62% annual average (45% Network + 17% MRF). Quarterly: Q1 57%, Q2 54%, Q3 70%, Q4 69%. Current FY26 tracking ≥70%.
Collection Friction: Low Friction
Consumer Return Rate on Deposit Pool
$300.0M
Total deposit pool
$159M
Paid to consumers
$141.0M
Not returned
53.0% of the total deposit pool is returned to consumers
VicReturn inherited an 8% baseline from existing kerbside MRF collection and deployed world-class infrastructure from day one. CDS Vic launched in November 2023 and is accelerating rapidly: 30% (FY24) → 57% (Q1 FY25, 49% jump) → 54% (Q2 winter dip) → 70% (Q3) → 69% (Q4) = 62% FY25 average.
Why does scheme performance
fall on the consumer?
The "Extended Producer Responsibility" Intention
Container deposit schemes were designed under an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework — meaning beverage manufacturers bear responsibility for the waste generated by their products. According to COEX CEO Natalie Roach's statement to the QLD Parliamentary Inquiry (May 2025), the scheme is "100% funded by beverage manufacturers."
Source: COEX Parliamentary Statement, May 2025The Practical Reality: Costs at the Shelf
Standard commercial practice allows manufacturers to pass scheme costs into retail shelf prices. This means the consumer — who buys the beverage — effectively pre-funds the scheme's infrastructure. According to Queensland's BottleBill data, beverage manufacturers pay an average scheme fee of 11.6c per container (above the 10c deposit). Whether, and to what extent, these costs are passed on to consumers varies by manufacturer.
Source: BottleBill.org — QLD Scheme Data36% Returned to Consumers in QLD
According to The Guardian's reporting on the QLD Parliamentary Inquiry (Oct 2025), Queensland's scheme "turns over nearly half a billion dollars a year, yet only 36% of this is returned to consumers, with less than 2% going to charities, schools, sporting clubs or community organisations." The inquiry also noted the scheme had "many millions of dollars in reserve, with no clear policy for spending it."
Source: The Guardian, 16 October 2025The Accountability Gap
Seven of eight Australian states have missed their legislated 85% recovery target — even after stripping MRF padding from the True CDS Rate, the picture is far worse. Infrastructure has been built. Awareness is high. The True CDS national average is well below 60%. The question of who is accountable for that gap — and who benefits from it remaining open — is a matter of legitimate public interest.
Source: QLD Parliamentary Inquiry, Oct 2025Editorial note: This page presents documented, publicly available information about the performance of Australia's container deposit schemes. All claims are attributed to their source. Questions about governance, transparency, and consumer value are matters of legitimate public interest and have been subject to formal parliamentary scrutiny. This page does not make allegations of misconduct against any individual or organisation. References to the QLD CCC referrals reflect published parliamentary committee findings — the outcome of that process is ongoing. The 10c Recycling Games is a proposed behavioural engagement platform, not a scheme regulator.
The Financial Mechanism:
Who pays, and who benefits?
The QLD Parliamentary Inquiry (Report No. 14, 58th Parliament, October 2025) confirmed that COEX — controlled by a majority of beverage manufacturer representatives, with Coca-Cola and Lion as the only two member companies — used unclaimed consumer deposits "to reduce their own contribution rates." This is the documented flow of funds.
Consumer pays two charges at the till
Every beverage purchase includes two embedded charges: the 10c deposit (refundable if the container is returned) and the Scheme Fee (~4c per container), which covers the scheme's operational costs. Both are collected by the retailer and passed upstream to the beverage manufacturer.
Manufacturers pass both charges to the coordinator
Beverage manufacturers remit both the deposit pool and the Scheme Fee to the scheme coordinator (e.g., COEX in QLD). Under the scheme's financial model, the Scheme Fee is calculated to cover operational costs. At this point, consumer funds have fully funded the scheme.
Consumers do not return 33%+ of containers
When a container is not returned for its 10c deposit, that 10c does not disappear — it remains with the coordinator as 'Unclaimed Deposit Revenue.' At the national True CDS average (~59%), this equates to approximately $490M+ in annual unclaimed deposits held by coordinators across Australia.
Unclaimed deposits used to reduce manufacturer contribution rates
The QLD Parliamentary Inquiry (Oct 2025) received evidence that COEX used unclaimed deposits "to reduce their own contribution rates" — that is, the Scheme Fee charged to beverage manufacturers was lowered in subsequent periods because the unclaimed deposit pool covered operating costs instead. The consumer had already paid the full Scheme Fee. The manufacturer then paid less.
The structural incentive: low returns = lower industry costs
The mechanism creates a structural financial incentive to maintain sub-85% return rates. If the 85% target were achieved, the unclaimed deposit pool would shrink significantly. The Scheme Fee would need to rise to cover the same operational costs — or the industry would need to absorb those costs. The founding board members (Coca-Cola and Lion in QLD) benefit directly from the continuation of the current recovery rate.
Confirmed Finding — QLD Parliamentary Inquiry
"COEX used unclaimed deposits on drink containers, to reduce their own contribution rates."
— Committee member Mr Molhoek, QLD Health, Environment and Innovation Committee inquiry proceedings, 2025. Reported by ABC News Australia, 7 News, and the Courier-Mail. The inquiry's Executive Summary separately confirms: "COEX is composed of a majority of beverage manufacturer representatives, and has two Member companies, Coke and Lion."
Consumer double-pays
The consumer pays the Scheme Fee (to fund operations) AND the 10c deposit. When they don't return the container, their 10c is then used to further subsidize the manufacturer's next-period obligations. The same consumer funds the scheme twice.
The self-adjusting subsidy
Scheme Fee pricing is adjusted each period based on available unclaimed deposit surplus. The higher the unclaimed pool, the lower the manufacturer's next fee. This is a documented feature — confirmed in the NZ regulatory impact analysis as a standard design element of CDS models globally.
Board control closes the loop
In QLD, the coordinator (COEX) is governed by a majority of beverage manufacturer representatives. Coca-Cola and Lion are the only member companies. The entities that benefit from lower contribution rates also control the governance of the entity that sets those rates.
7 of 8 schemes below target.
The True CDS gap is behavioural.
Strip out MRF padding and the national average drops well below 60%. Infrastructure is built. Awareness is high. The 10c refund alone is not moving the needle.
Important Legal Disclaimer
Please read and acknowledge these terms before continuing.