Australian Food and Grocery Council SUBMISSION€¦ · The Australian Food and Grocery Council...

Australian Food and Grocery Council

SUBMISSION

OCTOBER 2011

RESPONSE TO: ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AMENDMENT (BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOST AND RECOVERY SCHEME) BILL 2011


PREFACE

The Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) is the leading national organisation representing Australia’s food, drink and grocery manufacturing industry.

Membership of AFGC comprises more than 150 companies, subsidiaries and associates which constitutes in the order of 80 per cent of the gross dollar value of the processed food, beverage and grocery products sectors. (A full list of members is included in the Appendix).

AFGC’s aim is for the Australian food, beverage and grocery manufacturing industry to be world-class, sustainable, socially-responsible and competing profitably domestically and overseas.

With an annual turnover of $102 billion (Figure 1), Australia’s food and grocery manufacturing industry makes a substantial contribution to the Australian economy and is vital to the nation’s future prosperity.

Manufacturing of food, beverages and groceries in the fast moving consumer goods sector1 is Australia’s largest and most important manufacturing industry, four times larger than the automotive parts sector – the food and grocery manufacturing industry is a vital contributor to the wealth and health of our nation. Representing 28 per cent of total manufacturing turnover, the sector is comparable in size to the Australian mining sector and is more than four times larger than the automotive sector.

The industry’s products are in more than 24 million meals, consumed by 22 million Australians every day, every week and every year. The food and grocery manufacturing sector employs more than 288,000 people representing about 3 per cent of all employed people in Australia paying around $13 billion a year in salaries and wages.

The growing and sustainable industry is made up of 38,000 businesses and accounts for $44 billion of the nation’s international trade. The industry’s total sales and service income in 2007-08 was $102 billion and value-added increased to nearly $27 billion2. The industry spends about $3.8 billion a year

on capital investment and over $500 million a year on research and development.

Many food manufacturing plants are located outside the metropolitan regions. The industry makes a large contribution to rural and regional Australia economies, with almost half of the total persons employed being in rural and regional Australia3.

It is essential for the economic and social development of Australia, and particularly rural and regional Australia, that the magnitude, significance and contribution of this industry is recognised and factored into the Government’s economic, industrial and trade policies.

1 Fast moving consumer goods includes all products bought almost daily by Australians through retail outlets including food, beverages,

toiletries, cosmetics, household cleaning items etc.. 2 AFGC and KMPG, State of the Industry 2010. Essential information: facts and figures. Australian Food and Grocery Council. Oct 2010.

3 About Australia: www.dfat.gov.au

Figure 1: Industries turnover (2007-8)

http://www.dfat.gov.au/


CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6

THE VICTORIAN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AMENDMENT (BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT AND RECOVERY SCHEME) BILL 2011 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8

FACTS AND STATS: VICTORIA’S RECYCLING AND LITTER PERFORMANCE ......................................................................... 10

1.1. TABLE 1: STATE AND TERRITORY PLASTIC PACKAGING RECYCLING RATES 2009-10 ............................................................... 10 1.2. TABLE 2: NATIONAL LITTER RATES BY ITEMS AND VOLUME 2005-06 TO 2010-11 ............................................................... 10 1.3 TABLE 3: VICTORIA’S TOP 12 LITTERED ITEMS BY VOLUME 2010-11 ................................................................................. 11

APPENDIX - AFGC MEMBERSHIP AS AT 26 JULY 2011 ........................................................................................................ 12


SUBMISSION

SUBMISSION: ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AMENDMENT (BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT AND RECOVERY SCHEME) BILL 2011 PAGE 4 OF 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Container deposit legislation has been a contentious area in public policy for many years. Over the past 2 years alone, at both a state and federal level, a number of private members’ bills have been introduced to establish either state or national based container deposit legislation (CDL) systems.

A 2009 Senate inquiry into a private member’s bill introduced by the Greens to Federal Parliament found that while there was some support for CDL, debate around the bill and the disagreement from various groups, including the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC), highlighted ―how complex this area of policymaking can be4‖.

The EPHC’s own investigations have found that a national CDL system (at a deposit level of 10 cents) would have an economic cost to Australians of $680 million5 a year.

The AFGC supports the Australian Packaging Covenant (APC), a comprehensive national and co-regulatory approach to waste management that encompasses all packaging waste, not just

beverage containers. An isolated and narrow focus on beverage containers through CDL as proposed in the current Bill is a simplistic approach to a complex problem. The proposed Bill will:-

add to the regulatory and administrative burden on industry;

increase costs to government, business and the community;

undermine a successful co-regulatory APC.

Industry recommends the Committee oppose the Bill on the basis that:

the APC is a more comprehensive and equitable instrument for the management of packaging wastes in Australia.

container deposit schemes are a narrow and insular policy that address only a small component of the total waste stream (less than 4%).

container deposit systems impose a cost on all consumers, the bulk of whom who are already doing the right thing by recycling and not littering.

the Bill has not been subjected to a full cost-benefit analysis, nor has any modelling been undertaken of alternative options, as required under COAG principles.

the proposed scheme is internally inconsistent as it relies on unredeemed deposits to fund administrative and other recycling initiatives while at the same time predicting high rates of bottle redemptions (>80%). This by definition reduces the unredeemed deposit pool significantly, leaving manifestly inadequate resources to fund the scheme itself, let alone distribute funds to community groups, councils etc.

a national CDL is one of a range of options that is currently subject to a thorough and independent cost-benefit analysis through a Packaging Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement (PCRIS) conducted by the EPHC. A report is due in November 2011 and it is expected that a decision will be made by Environment Ministers in March/April 2012. To take pre-emptive action in passing this Bill ahead of the PCRIS would be wasteful of resources, time and money, and lead to a poor policy outcome.

it will have considerable impacts on sales volumes and employment in Victoria.

Industry does not accept the need for additional and competing state-based regulation (such as CDL) when the national APC is achieving substantial improvements in packaging recycling rates

4 See: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/environment_protect_09/report/report.pdf p21

5 See: http://www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default/files/BevCon__Rpt__BCI_Revised_report_Apr_2010_2010_06_28.pdf

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/environment_protect_09/report/report.pdf

http://www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default/files/BevCon__Rpt__BCI_Revised_report_Apr_2010_2010_06_28.pdf


SUBMISSION


while also addressing the whole of the packaging supply chain, including design and production of packaging. CDL is an extremely expensive container collection scheme, addressing the very end of the packaging chain. For example, it does nothing to address upstream issues such as optimising packaging design and production, nor does it create additional markets for those recovered materials currently being stockpiled or sent to landfill. CDL as a concept is decades old, and its environmental benefits are simply too narrow. Industry believes there are more holistic responses available that help close the packaging loop and create genuine and sustainable environmental outcomes at far less cost to the community and business. The AFGC supports the robust and transparent cost-benefit analysis of packaging waste options, currently being undertaken at the direction of COAG Ministers (see summary of options at pp6-7).

Employment impacts

The AFGC’s Packaging Stewardship Forum has recently commissioned research on the impacts of a national CDL on retail volumes and employment. The report, by economists ACIL Tasman6, found that the a national CDL at 14 cents per container (ie including handling fee) would reduce employment levels in the industry nati0nally by 4,202 direct jobs and 5,164 indirect jobs. Extrapolating this result to Victoria means the loss of 1,105 direct jobs and 1,358 indirect jobs.

Victoria’s recycling and litter performance

Victoria has developed the world’s best community driven recycling programs, the result of a passionate adoption of recycling, particularly at home, without the need for an incentive, plus a unique cooperative arrangement between industry and all levels of government through the APC. Nationally, packaging recycling rates have risen from below 40% to 62.5% over the past seven years, equivalent to an extra 1,000,000 tonnes of packaging now recycled annually.

In 2009-10 Victoria achieved the highest plastic packaging recycling rates of any state or territory at 72.3%7, followed by South Australia at 34.7% (for details see p10). This is due to the high level of plastics manufacture in the state (and hence end markets), resulting in significant generation and recovery of pre-consumer material. Victoria has the largest number of plastics recyclers of any state. Further, according to Keep Australia Beautiful’s National Litter Index8, the ACT and Victoria continue to lead the country as the most consistently lowest littered jurisdictions since the survey began in 2005-06. Victorian litter has reduced by 46% by count and nearly 50% by volume over the last 5 years (for details see p10) The Index also shows that in Victoria, beverage container litter by volume, already at lower levels that in many other states, has reduced across most categories since the survey began (see p11). These nation-leading achievements have been made in the context of a collaborative partnership model, building on Victorians’ love of recycling, and without penalising consumers and industry with undue cost, inconvenience and heavy handed regulation. The fact that Victoria consistently outperforms South Australia (the only state with CDL) demonstrates that collaborative models have the potential to achieve better and more sustainable environmental outcomes than ones based on taxes and punitive instruments.

6 National Container Deposit Scheme Impacts – Projected changes in Australian retail volumes and associated employment impacts by

beverage category, September 2011

7 Derived from 2010 National Plastics Recycling Survey—July 2009 to June 2010 survey period, Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd

8 Keep Australia Beautiful National Litter Index Annual Report 2010-2011, McGregor Tan Research, July 2011


SUBMISSION


BACKGROUND

Over the past 2 years, at both a state and federal level, a number of private members’ bills have been introduced to establish either state or national based container deposit legislation (CDL) systems.

A 2009 Senate inquiry into a private members bill introduced by the Greens to Federal parliament found that while there was some support for CDL, debate around the bill and the disagreement from various groups, including the EPHC, highlighted ―how complex this area of policymaking can be9‖.

During 2010, the EPHC commissioned a number of studies into beverage container and packaging waste recovery including an assessment of potential options for national measures10, including CDL, to address resource efficiency, environmental impacts and the reduction of litter from packaging wastes such as beverage containers. The report found that a national CDL (at a deposit level of 10 cents) would have an economic cost to Australians of $680 million a year. The report also found:

The cost per tonne of CDL was $2,040 (to recover an additional 330,000 tonnes per year) compared to a range of $13 to $70 a tonne (to recover more than 500,000 tonnes per year) for approaches supported by industry under the current co-regulatory policy arrangement, the APC.

A national CDL would require significant changes to collection and handling systems for beverage containers and would only bring about a moderate increase in resource recovery.

The scheme would add a financial impost on consumers ($300 million per annum) due to the value of unredeemed deposits.

Inconvenience in returning beverage containers would represent another impost.

The AFGC supports a comprehensive national approach to waste management that encompasses all packaging waste, not just beverage containers, the Australian Packaging Covenant (APC). An isolated and narrow focus on beverage containers through CDL nationally, or through a state-based CDL system (such as proposed in this Bill) would:

add to the regulatory and administrative burden on industry;

increase costs to government and the community;

undermine a successful co-regulatory APC. The AFGC also support the Packaging Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement (PCRIS) currently being progressed through EPHC. The PCRIS has defined four options, grouped into seven sub-options, which are now being evaluated against broad criteria to assess the cost-benefit of each option. The options may be summarised as follows:

1. Non-regulatory national waste strategy – the ―base case‖ or status quo. This involves jurisdictions working together voluntarily, without any further regulation, to co-ordinate programs and increase awareness.

2. Industry co-regulatory packaging scheme under the Product Stewardship Act 2011. There are three sub options:-

9 See: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/environment_protect_09/report/report.pdf Page 21

10 See: http://www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default/files/BevCon__Rpt__BCI_Revised_report_Apr_2010_2010_06_28.pdf

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/environment_protect_09/report/report.pdf

http://www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default/files/BevCon__Rpt__BCI_Revised_report_Apr_2010_2010_06_28.pdf


SUBMISSION


a) Bring the existing APC under the Product Stewardship Act 2011 as it (ie APC) currently

operates. b) Use existing co-regulatory arrangements to channel a significantly increased level of

industry investment to address key problem areas, namely away from home recycling and litter.

c) Extended industry product stewardship scheme, involving a number of targeted sub-schemes in addition to the key areas addressed by 2.b).

3. Mandatory advanced disposal fee – this would involve the Government placing a levy on all packaging to create a pool of funds to fund comprehensive stewardship activities.

4. A national container deposit scheme, modelled on two options: a) A broad-based scheme (all rigid packaging) proposed by the Boomerang Alliance (and

some Green groups). b) A hybrid scheme based on the South Australian and overseas models.

It is expected that a report will be released in November 2011 and a decision will be made by Environment Ministers in March/April 2012. To take pre-emptive action in passing the current Victorian Bill ahead of the PCRIS results would be wasteful of resources, time and money, and lead to a poor policy outcome.


SUBMISSION


THE VICTORIAN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AMENDMENT (BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT AND RECOVERY SCHEME) BILL 2011

The Bill seeks to establish a state-wide beverage container deposit system which would be administered by the Victorian Environment Protection Authority. The deposit would be set at 10 cents per container, with a higher amount to be set in the future by regulation.

The AFGC believes the Bill is fatally flawed in that it:-

1. could lead to a significant budget shortfall as it relies solely on unredeemed deposits to fund administrative and other recycling initiatives;

2. has not been subject to rigorous cost-benefit analysis, along with a range of alternative options which could be more cost efficient and sustainable.

Budget Shortfall

Supporting documentation to the Bill “Turning Rubbish into Community Money: The benefits of a 10c deposit on drink containers in Victoria”11, states that beverage container recycling rates would

increase to 83% under a CDL.

Simple modelling shows that the cost impact of the Bill, at an 83% recycling rate and a 10 cent deposit, could be more than $48 million per annum to the Victorian Government budget due to a shortfall in revenues less the costs to administer the system.

This is illustrated in the following scenario, which provides an insight into the costs that the Victorian government could incur annually:-

3 billion12 beverage container containers are sold annually at 10 cents = $300,000,000 (paid by consumers).

83% of containers are returned to receive the deposit (ie 2,490,000,000 x 10 cents) = $249,000,000 redeemed by consumers.

17% of containers don’t get returned (ie 510,000,000 x 10 cents) = $51,000,000 (lost by consumers but left to fund the system).

System operational costs of $99.6 million (ie 2.49 billion containers redeemed x 4 cents13 handling fee per container.

Net cost to the Victorian government budget of $48.6 million per annum (ie $51 million revenue less administrative costs of $99.6 million).

Further, there would be no surplus funds available to pursue other activities such as promotion or recycling and market development grants as outlined in Section 52C(1) and (2) of the Bill. The system is not self funding.

11 Turning Rubbish into Community Money: The benefits of a 10c deposit on drink containers in Victoria‖, by the office of Colleen

Hartland MLC, June 2011

12 Note: 3 billion beverage containers is an estimate of the number of containers that would be subject to a CDL and sold in Vic toria

annually, however the above analysis applies for any number of containers and a redemption rate of 83%.

13 Handling fee based on the current South Australian CDL handling fee of 4 cents per container


SUBMISSION


No rigorous cost-benefit analysis

The Bill has not been subject to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis to satisfy COAG requirements.

AFGC believes the following key principles must be followed in the development of public policy:-

1. As a first step, regulatory and/or market failure must be demonstrated, as well as its scale and significance in terms of economic and environmental impact. Once regulatory and/or market failure has been demonstrated, then appropriate principles for the setting of policy and regulation must include:-

the clear identification of issues to be addressed and outcomes sought;

the use of evidence and fact-based approaches, including practicality factors, to underpin any market interventions;

appropriate tools such as science based-risk assessment to determine costs and benefits;

consultation with stakeholders (and demonstration that these are reasonably heeded), particularly those required to implement and pay for any changes in regulations; and

consideration of all potential policy instruments, with the most cost effective being given priority. These include mandatory arrangements, co-regulatory arrangements and voluntary industry codes and guidelines.

2. Consideration should also be given to the interaction of any proposed regulation with

existing arrangements and frameworks at the Commonwealth level and in the states and territories.

3. To complete the process the policy approach should have relevant compliance procedures

in terms of enforcement and methods of monitoring the implementation of the policy. Importantly the approach should also allow for amendment, revision and ultimately removal of any instruments incorporated into the policy as developments in technology and innovation find ways to correct the original market failure.

The AFGC recommends that the Victorian Environment Protection Amendment (Beverage Container Deposit and Recovery Scheme) Bill be rejected and the Victorian Government continue to actively participate in the national PCRIS process due for completion in the first half of 2012. The AFGC appreciates the opportunity to provide this written submission to assist in the Committee’s deliberations and would be happy to give evidence in a public hearing. For further information regarding this submission contact: Tony Mahar, AFGC Director Sustainable Development: [email protected] OR Jenny Pickles, General Manager, AFGC Packaging Stewardship Forum: [email protected] T: (02) 6273 1466

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


SUBMISSION


FACTS AND STATS: VICTORIA’S RECYCLING AND LITTER PERFORMANCE

Note: data for state by state comparisons of recycling rates is not available in all packaging categories.

1.1. Table 1: State and Territory Plastic Packaging Recycling Rates 2009-1014

State

Plastic Packaging Recycling Rate

Victoria 72.3%

South Australia 34.7%

New South Wales 24.6%

Western Australia 19.5%

Queensland 18.8%

ACT 17.9%

Tasmania 13.5%

1.2. Table 2: National Litter Rates by Items and Volume 2005-06 to 2010-1115

Items per 1,000m2 Volume (litres) per 1,000m2

05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11

NATIONAL 70 74 68 63 66 61 8.86 9.68 8.59 7.73 7.55 6.49

ACT - 68 56 56 51 45 - 7.04 6.06 4.77 3.31 3.73

NSW 80 71 77 65 75 69 14.95 14.69 11.90 12.13 13.43 10.72

NT - 64 60 84 70 34 - 5.32 7.24 6.00 5.09 3.16

QLD 89 86 76 59 76 78 7.66 7.59 7.44 5.60 5.65 5.94

SA 60 61 68 57 54 55 7.23 11.08 9.55 8.02 7.13 5.36

TAS 59 70 61 64 86 85 5.15 6.68 5.90 9.20 9.04 8.23

VIC 71 80 48 43 50 39 7.87 7.74 4.19 2.87 4.91 3.99

WA 60 83 85 87 71 75 8.57 12.19 13.06 11.93 9.44 9.03

Note: The significant reduction in the number of litter items and volume per 1,000m2 in the Northern Territory

was due primarily to the exceptional wet conditions which washed litter away.

14 Derived from 2010 National Plastics Recycling Survey—July 2009 to June 2010 survey period, Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd



SUBMISSION


1.3 Table 3: Victoria’s Top Dozen Littered Items by Volume 2010-1116


Dirty Dozen - Volume per 1000 Square Metres - Object Sub-Categories -

VIC - 06/07 to 10/11

0

0

0.44

1.03

0.17

0.82

0

0.37

0.49

0.83

0.25

1.80

0.05

0.09

0.14

0.33

0.16

0.52

0.04

0.27

0.57

0.58

0.15

0.45

0.08

0.19

0.14

0.37

0.23

0.25

0.33

0.13

0.40

0.05

0.10

0.57

0.31

0.22

0.46

0.04

0.43

0.15

0.68

0.20

0.60

0.12

0.13

0.15

0.20

0.21

0.25

0.28

0.34

0.42

0.43

0.45

0.45

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

METAL - Food container or

utensil

METAL - Other

PAPER /PAPERBOARD -

Publication

METAL - Alcoholic beverage

container

METAL - Non-alcoholic beverage

container

PAPER/ PAPERBOARD - Food

container or utensil

PAPER/ PAPERBOARD - Other

GLASS - Alcoholic beverage

container

PLASTIC - Other

PLASTIC - Non-alcoholic

beverage container

PAPER/ PAPERBOARD -

Cigarette packets

ILLEGAL DUMPING - Total

Litres

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11


SUBMISSION


APPENDIX - AFGC MEMBERSHIP AS AT 26 JULY 2011

Arnott's Biscuits Limited

Asia-Pacific Blending Corporation P/L

Barilla Australia Pty Ltd

Beak & Johnston Pty Ltd

Beechworth Honey Pty Ltd

Beerenberg Pty Ltd

Bickfords Australia

Birch and Waite Foods Pty Ltd

BOC Gases Australia Limited

Bronte Industries Pty Ltd

Bulla Dairy Foods

Bundaberg Brewed Drinks Pty Ltd

Bundaberg Sugar Limited

Byford Flour Mills T/a Millers Foods

Campbell’s Soup Australia

Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd

Cerebos (Australia) Limited

Cheetham Salt Ltd

Christie Tea Pty Ltd

Church & Dwight (Australia) Pty Ltd

Clorox Australia Pty Ltd

Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Limited

Coca-Cola South Pacific Pty Ltd

Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd

Coopers Brewery Limited

Danisco Australia Pty Ltd

Devro Pty Ltd

DSM Food Specialties Australia Pty Ltd

Earlee Products

Eagle Boys Pizza

FPM Cereal Milling Systems Pty Ltd

Ferrero Australia

Fibrisol Services Australia Pty Ltd

Fonterra Brands (Australia) Pty Ltd

Food Spectrum Group

Frucor Beverages (Australia)

General Mills Australia Pty Ltd

George Weston Foods Limited

GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare

Go Natural

Goodman Fielder Limited

Gourmet Food Holdings

H J Heinz Company Australia Limited

Harvest FreshCuts Pty Ltd

Healthy Snacks

Hela Schwarz

Hoyt Food Manufacturing Industries P/L

Hungry Jack’s Australia

Jalna Dairy Foods

JBS Australia Pty Limited

Johnson & Johnson Pacific Pty Ltd

Kellogg (Australia) Pty Ltd

Kerry Ingredients Australia Pty Ltd

Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd

Kraft Foods Asia Pacific

Laucke Flour Mills

Lion Nathan National Foods Limited

Madura Tea Estates

Manildra Harwood Sugars

Mars Australia

McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd

McCormick Foods Aust. Pty Ltd

McDonald’s Australia

Merisant Manufacturing Aust. Pty Ltd

Myosyn Industries

Nerada Tea Pty Ltd

Nestlé Australia Limited

Nutricia Australia Pty Ltd

Ocean Spray International Inc

Only Organic 2003 Pty Ltd

Parmalat Australia Limited

Patties Foods Pty Ltd

Pfizer Consumer Healthcare

Procter & Gamble Australia Pty Ltd

Queen Fine Foods Pty Ltd

QSR Holdings

Reckitt Benckiser (Aust) Pty Ltd

Red Bull Australia

Safcol Canning Pty Ltd

Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing

Sara Lee Australia

SCA Hygiene Australasia

Schweppes Australia

Sensient Technologies

Simplot Australia Pty Ltd

Spicemasters of Australia Pty Ltd

Stuart Alexander & Co Pty Ltd

Subway

Sugar Australia Pty Ltd

SunRice

Tasmanian Flour Mills Pty Ltd

Tate & Lyle ANZ

The Smith’s Snackfood Co.

The Wrigley Company

Tixana Pty Ltd

Unilever Australasia

Vital Health Foods (Australia) Pty Ltd

Ward McKenzie Pty Ltd

Wyeth Australia Pty Ltd

Yakult Australia Pty Ltd

Yum Restaurants International

Associate & *Affiliate Members

Accenture

Australian Pork Limited

ACI Operations Pty Ltd

Amcor Fibre Packaging

*ASMI

AT Kearney

BRI Australia Pty Ltd

Baker & McKenzie

*Baking Association Australia

CAS Systems of Australia

CHEP Asia-Pacific

CSIRO Food and Nutritional Sciences

CoreProcess (Australia) Pty Ltd

*CropLife

CROSSMARK Asia Pacific

Dairy Australia

Food Liaison Pty Ltd

FoodLegal

*Foodservice Suppliers Ass. Aust.

*Food industry Association QLD

*Food industry Association WA

*Food Q

Foodbank Australia Limited

*Go Grains Health & Nutrition Ltd

Grant Thornton

GS1

Harris Smith

IBM Business Cons Svcs

innovations & solutions

KN3W Ideas Pty Ltd

KPMG

Leadership Solutions

Legal Finesse

Linfox Australia Pty Ltd

Logan Office of EconomicDev.

Meat and Livestock Australia Limited

Monsanto Australia Limited

New Zealand Trade and Enterprise

*PLMA Australia / New Zealand

Red Rock Consulting

RQA Asia Pacific

StayinFront Group Australia

Strikeforce Alliance

Swire Cold Storage

Swisslog Australia Pty Ltd

Tetra Pak Marketing Pty Ltd

The Food Group Australia

The Nielsen Company

Touchstone Cons. Australia Pty Ltd

Valesco Consulting FZE

Visy

Wiley & Co Pty Ltd

PSF Members

Amcor Packaging Australia

Bundaberg Brewed Drinks Pty Ltd

Schweppes Australia Pty Ltd

Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Limited

Lion Nathan Limited

Owens Illinois

Visy Pak


Level 2, Salvation Army House

2–4 Brisbane Avenue

Barton ACT 2600

Locked Bag 1

Kingston ACT 2604

T: (02) 6273 1466

F: (02) 6273 1477

[email protected]

www.afgc.org.au

Australian Food and Grocery Council SUBMISSION€¦ · The Australian Food and Grocery Council...

Documents

Transcript of Australian Food and Grocery Council SUBMISSION€¦ · The Australian Food and Grocery Council...