Not only a deposit on drink containers.
A deposit on ALL forms of take away or disposable containers including cigarette packets and butts!
The deposit must be high enough so that people will need to return them or else forfeit a considerable amount of cash.
Items that are in sections, such as cigarette packets MUST be returned complete with ALL used contents and packaging to get the deposit back.
The scheme could be funded by returning only, say, 90% of the initial deposit with the remaining 10% used to implement and run the scheme.
Employment would be generated by the need to construct and staff recycling centres.
Of course this will initially increase the cost of just about everything but the difference will be returned when the item is returned, less 10%.
Sadly this system penalises those responsible persons who already recycle but we might, just might, end up with a clean environment, much less waste and less consumable wastage.
A Brazilian friend of mine, on a visit to Australia in 2009 was appalled by the amount of litter. As she said "litter is abundant in Brazil too but Australia is supposed to be an educated country".
It would seem that education does not work.
Time to enforce recycling by hitting the hip pocket.

"Why are the beverage giants fighting tooth-and-nail to stop the spread of container deposit schemes – arrangements that are proven to cut down on litter and increase recycling rates?"

South Australia has had a container deposit scheme for years. Where is the evidence that South Australia has less litter or higher recycling rates than states that do not? South Australia did not appear to be less littered than NSW or Victoria when I visited before Christmas.

As the author claims he is an economist, why does he not table the cost and benefit figures that support his push for such schemes?

Of course the drinks companies’ arguments are self-serving. But as Raycom indicates, the key question is whether the benefits the policy delivers justify its costs, and whether this is the most effective way to deliver benefits. It’s not enough that container deposits encourage some people to return containers. The schemes impose significant costs on retailers (handling and storage) and distributors (transport and recycling). They remove relatively valuable elements from the general recycling stream, potentially rendering broader recycling programs less economic. The people who recycle under these schemes are often the ones who recycle anyway. And of course the schemes add to costs for consumers.

I'd guess there are much more effective ways to encourage recycling and reduce litter (like putting more bins in places where people actually produce litter)

Living in SA I know that a great deal of refundable containers go into the recycle bin. The deposits on these containers just go to make the recycling more worth while for the recyclers (fine by me).
It's also a great way to subsidise many a street persons income. Apart from some extra fuel used driving the containers to the depot I cant see a down side. Although there is the strange anomaly of no deposits on wine bottles?

Typical rubbish from the Australian Conservation Foundation.

It is highly doubtful that large scale recycling by councils is anything other than pandering to the greenies. It most definitely is not of any economic value, & probably consumes at least as much in resources as it saves.

An attempt to have a stand alone system with soft drink bottles is definitely going to consume more resources than it saves.

The only reason for any such scheme would be to satisfy a desire by vindictive organisations such as the ACF to punish financially, companies they don't like, or don't approve of.

As pointed out by Raycom, we see no cost benefit analysis produced for the scheme. Can anyone doubt than an economists such as Tristan would have done one. The fact it is not supplied is enough to prove it was negative. Still the fact that an idea was bad, has never stopped a greenie outfit from pushing anything harmful in the past, so why would it now?

Thanks for your comments.

My perspective is that a 'user pays' approach to waste is entirely acceptable. In this case, the manufacturers and the consumers (myself included) are the users.

Currently, the cost of waste is funded through rates paid to local councils to pay for kerbside and incidental rubbish collection. Litter is simply any waste that evades these methods of collection.

If we still agree at this point then we can begin to talk about effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis.

As far as effectiveness goes, there is plenty of evidence of the higher rates of recovery where a container deposit schemes (CDS) exist. In-fact, as I wrote in my article, evidence suggests that NT's rate had doubled in just a year. More examples can be found in the Productivity Commission report into Waste Management:

http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/waste

As for cost-benefit analysis, the reality is that a comprehensive CBA on this topic, including any flow on impacts, is a difficult thing to undertake. However, The Productivity Commission (PC) looks at this too and this goes to the heart of my argument - and why I disagree with the PC on this. They acknowledge that container deposit schemes are effective at increasing container waste recovery but they conclude that it's not 'cost-effective' because existing kerbside recycling exists and that general anti-litter programs are likely to be cheaper. But they don't discuss who is to pay for these options, nor do they acknowledge that reductions in kerbside collection are a potential saving to the economy.

But what we do know is that currently, taxpayers and ratepayers are effectively subsidising the cost of waste. My argument is simply that CDL is effective and that for obvious reasons beverage companies will fight to retain an implicit subsidy. I would argue that CDL is a actually a more efficient policy because it internalises the price signals regarding waste into the cost of the product which will be reflected in supply and demand.