Brisbane cracks open $75m mega Coca-Cola canning line to quench energy drink thirst
The state-of-the-art production line at the company's Richlands site in Brisbane, Queensland, was recently opened — and unveiled a rare glimpse inside the factory.
WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE: Coke's largest canning line unveiled in Brisbane.
If canning at full capacity, the new line pumps out 2,000 cans per minute, 120,000 per hour, and nearly three million each day.
It is set to keep up with the nation's craving for high-caffeine drinks such as Monster and Mother, as well as fizzy favourites such as Coca-Cola, Sprite and Fanta.
'This is a landmark moment for our operations in Australia,' CCEP Australia managing director Orlando Rodriguez said.
'Richlands is our largest manufacturing site in our Australian network, and now it's home to our most efficient and largest canning line to date in our global network — bolstering Queensland 's thriving manufacturing industry and supporting Aussie jobs.'
The 18-month build provided work for more than 250 local contractors and the new line has already created 18 full-time jobs.
'It's a real win for Queensland manufacturing and a real win for local jobs, ' CCEP Australian director of manufacturing Tom Scheibling said.
'It really is a major investment in our people here in Richlands.'
Rodriguez said the investment reflects the company's commitment to local production and reducing environmental impact.
'Our philosophy is centred on making it where we sell it — reducing the distance our products travel, cutting emissions and keeping shelves stocked more efficiently.'
The new line is as smart as it is speedy, using room-temperature can filling to slash energy use by 23 per cent compared with older lines.
A boosted water treatment system ups water efficiency by 67 per cent.
Coca-Cola drinks have been made in Australia for nearly 90 years.
The company now employs more than 3,000 people nationwide — more than 700 of them in Queensland.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
42 minutes ago
- 7NEWS
7NEWS The Issue: Why Trump's latest veiled threat could spell trouble for the pride of Australia
It was a telling measure of the value Australians put in the country's 77-year-old Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In mid March, as the Albanese government looked for an issue to give it impetus for a soon-to-be-called election, it turned to the PBS; loved in Australia - and loathed by Pharmaceutical makers abroad - for delivering medicines at little more than one quarter the cost paid by Americans. Prime Minister Albanese announced, if reelected, he'd reduce the scheme's cap on prescriptions, from $31.60 to just $25. Opposition leader Peter Dutton immediately backed the plan. 'We support affordable medicines,' he told radio 2GB. On complaints from US pharmaceutical companies about the PBS, the Prime Minister seized on the chance for a fight. The PBS, he said was 'a monument to the fairness at the heart of Australian life and we don't negotiate our values.' The PBS is political gold. Supporting it is a 'no brainer' for a federal politician. Yet, five months on that threat from the US, has only intensified and it may yet test Australia's love for the scheme. For President Donald Trump, high prescription drug costs in America have become a cause. Loading content... Last month, the White House announced the President had written to 17 drug company CEOs demanding guarantees 'they will not offer other developed nations better prices for new drugs than prices offered in the United States.' According to a Trump White House fact sheet, 'Americans are subsidising drug-manufacturer profits and foreign health systems.' The statement did not mention Australia's PBS, but if the White House staff had wanted an example, it would have been an obvious candidate. 'The PBS is a cornerstone of our Medicare system' according to Medicines Australia CEO, Liz de Somer, though that's where her applause for the scheme ends. Medicines Australia is the industry body representing many of the same pharmaceutical giants now targeted by the Trump White House. According to Liz de Somer 'we're lagging behind other countries in the time it takes to make new medicines available on the PBS.' 'We are now taking an average of 466 days for a new innovative medicine to be listed on the PBS, and that's after it's already been deemed safe and effective by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.' 'We know these drugs are safe, we know they're effective, but the government has not yet decided to purchase them and make them subsidised for patients. They take too long.' Medicines Australia wants the 466 days average drug listing time, reduced dramatically - to just sixty days. That would likely mean dramatically reducing the time taken by the government and companies to negotiate a price for their medicines. The end result could easily be a bigger bill for the Australian taxpayer. Currently, the PBS costs about $14 billion a year to run. Of course, there is a human cost to delaying approval for medicines. Medicines Australia points to the 'many, many cancer medicines that are not available for patients' in Australia. According to Liz de Somer: 'We are getting one in four innovations listed on our PBS at the moment. That's not good enough.' 'We know that people are waiting for these medicines. We know that they can see they're available in other countries, and they don't understand why they're not made available here.' There is an obvious profit motive for pharmaceutical companies in getting listed sooner and selling their product more quickly, but delays in the system have a human cost. The Albanese government is currently considering recommendations to reform the scheme including measures designed to speed the process.
Man of Many
4 hours ago
- Man of Many
Meet the Australian Fragrance Brands Shaping a New Olfactory Landscape
Australia's love affair with fragrance is only just beginning. Over the past decade, the beguiling sector has undergone a quiet transformation, sweeping from a hive of mass-market imports and celebrity-endorsed perfumes to a true boutique industry. And at its heart lies a desire for originality in storytelling. If you ask the perfumers and fragrance experts leading the future of scent, a change is in the air. A shifting fashion climate and the rise of home-grown individualism have given way to a new form of contemporary luxury, one that isn't as concerned with pomp as it is with provenance. As Craig Andrade, founder of craft label The Raconteur, explains, fragrance, as a category, is fast-moving from status symbol to personal expression. 'When you have a great sense of scent in your wardrobe, it becomes this beautiful, invisible communication that says so much and yet, only those who are close to you can understand what it is you're trying to say,' Andrade says. 'It is the most subtle form of self-expression; the most exquisite form of communication a man can use to say who he is.' Adrade is one of the many boutique Australian producers helping to chart a new frontier in fragrance. The former law firm partner turned perfumer launched his business in 2019 after identifying a gap in the market for premium, artisanal scents that offered something different from the industry norm. When COVID hit just one year later, his gamble paid off. 'That moment accelerated and accentuated this heightened awareness around scent,' he tells me. 'It also brought this sort of category of wellbeing, where scent could play a role in small touches to elevate your space, to the forefront. When you're working from home, simply applying a room scent was a small ritual of self-care and something you could do at home.' 'There was a huge surge in demand; you started to see this audience that had a greater awareness and a greater level of sophistication when purchasing online. For men and for women, there was just a bigger appetite for getting into this space, and that was the tectonic shift in our industry globally, and certainly in Australia.'
West Australian
8 hours ago
- West Australian
MICHELLE GRATTAN: Consensus goal may elude
One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: 'Chalmers has opened a can of worms — and everybody has got a worm'. Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done — you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be States, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus says, 'one person's regulations are another person's rights'. As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. 'We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5 per cent over the past decade,' he posted on X. 'That's embarrassingly shy of the 22 per cent lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. 'You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't.' Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve 'enough consensus to change some things', which the Government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its 'lead-up hasn't seen much consensus', Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get 'broad agreement on some version of the ' Abundance agenda' (a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks) – especially as it applies to housing. 'In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the Government with options by year's end.' There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue — in terms of what has wide support and what fits the Government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the Government — specifically the Prime Minister — has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, 'The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election'. This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term — the phrasing is carefully in the present tense — but from what we know of the PM's approach they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. 'But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The Government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. 'The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028,' Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the Treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that 'old bull, young bull' syndrome. The different styles are clear. The 'old bull' is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The 'young bull' is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new, and quickly changing, area of policy debate. There are varying views within Government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit — the Government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable — a four-day working week — has already been dismissed by the Government. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display.
