Opinion by Patrick Avenell

Read our Special Feature on the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme here.

Television and computer importers will be reading the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities’ first annual report into the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme closely. The amount of money they have invested has been significant. The way this Scheme has been legislated means the importers carry the total financial burden.

On a trip to Japan in 2010, I saw firsthand how successful its overall electronics recycling program has become. This much wider scheme mandates the recycling of TVs, laundry appliances, refrigerators and air conditioners. Consumers have been inculcated to either return their end-of-life purchases to retailers or pass them over to the deliverymen transporting their new products.

The Japanese do this even though they are charged a levy on recycling: the equivalent of $22 for a small TV and $28 for a large TV.

The TVs and appliances are then broken down into individual materials and sold back to manufacturing companies to be used in the next generation of products.

Australia’s Scheme eschews making the consumers bear any of the financial cost, though the burden is indirectly placed on them through future product pricing. The Japanese system is inherently better, however, as it doesn’t place an unnecessary upfront burden on the importers to fund the recycling of retrospective sales.

Click here to sign up for our FREE daily newsletter

Follow Current.com.au on Twitter

It is grossly unfair to hold the importers solely responsible for the recycling of TVs and PC products. Australia is a highly materialistic and consumer driven country where the citizens demand the latest and greatest technology at the lowest possible price. The demand for new TV and PC products has driven the supply, so that demand must also bear some of the cost of recycling.

A much more reasonable funding system would have shared the cost of recycling on the importers and the consumers, through a levy paid on the purchase of new TVs.
 
ANZRP is at a competitive disadvantage because it has immature business structures and no scale in logistics. The premium it is charging to establish its business — to catch up to DHL and E-Cycle — will only justify itself if it can eventually start offering the cheapest rate due to being a not-for-profit.

Permanent Collection Sites, ideally ones located at well-known retail outlets, must be the focus ahead of collection events. While some remote locations can’t sustain a permanent installation, it is troubling that events are still being held in large regional centres like Maitland and Raymond Terrace. The money spent promoting and setting up these events would be better applied to creating a permanent depository.

The annual re-pitching for customers is clearly a distraction, no matter how much the co-regulators refuse to acknowledge it. We have learnt that DHL is close to announcing a new four-year agreement with one of its customers, most likely Sony Australia — this is a much better system. Long-term plans can be made and energies can be focused properly if the co-regulators have firm commitments from customers.

The Government must revise the amount of leakage allowed in the recycling of computer products. Ten per cent does not cover the amount of end-of-life devices being hoarded or refurbished for future sale. While the 40 per cent figure seems on the high side, it is definitely closer to the actual leakage figure. Considering this problem affects ANZRP three times as much as DHL (and it has had no effect on E-Cycle), it is a significant factor in their under-collection.

Recycling TVs and computers is a good thing and the importers need to be congratulated for financially committing the funds to it, however begrudgingly. We need to rid our streets of e-waste and make sure dangerous materials are recycled properly.

All three co-regulators need to ensure they are spending the importers’ money wisely and the Department needs to more openly report their progress — and tighten the penalties for non-compliance.

And consumers need to do their part by dropping off their old products for recycling — click on the links for a list of Tech Collect and Drop Zone sites.

http://techcollect.com.au/
http://www.dropzone.org.au/

Consumers should have to pay? It’s the importers’ responsibility? Tell us what you think.

This opinion piece follows a special feature written by Patrick Avenell on the current state of e-cycling in Australia. You can read the full feature here.

Read Current.com.au's full list of co-regulator agreements here.