It's taken a very long time, but Tasmania finally seems to be stumbling towards a container deposit scheme.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Many have been crying out for this to happen for what seems like decades, and in some cases it probably is.
Other states have had container deposit schemes for years, but it has always seemed a bridge too far in Tasmania.
Anyone who has been involved in clean-up events or regularly visits public areas knows that it is a big part of the litter stream.
And for an island like ours which markets itself as clean and green, it was a little hard to sell if you took a short walk around a lot of our premium locations because they were frequently strewn with debris. A lot of the time this was discarded bottles and cans.
To help with reducing the litter around the state, it is the commonly held view that a financial incentive is the way to go.
It won't stop the hardcore ignoramus who believes they can litter wherever they please.
But it may give others driven by the chance to make a few dollars the impetus to pick up what they leave and turn it into cash.
The reaction to the announcement by Minister Roger Jaensch on Thursday has been a little mixed.
The local government sector has welcomed the move, as the biggest player in waste in the state and one that has been lobbying for this over many years.
Local Government Association of Tasmania president Christina Holmdahl says it will reduce the burden of plastic litter in the environment and increase recycling rates. This is a great outcome.
She also praised the split-governance model, which she says is likely to result in more accessible collection points than alternatives.
Less impressed are TASRecycle, the group set up by beverage industry players Coca-Cola Amatil and Lion.
They claim the split model preferred by Mr Jaensch will cost community and sporting groups the chance to benefit from container recycling.
It remains to be seen whether or not the government can deliver a scheme within the timeline it has set, but whatever happens, the state needs to get moving.
What do you think? Send a letter to the Editor