LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LITTER) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:38): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1999. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:38): I move:

That this bill now be read a second time.

In speaking to this bill, I will be quick because I appreciate that this is the last day of sitting and there are a number of private members' matters following this that members want to speak on, and hopefully vote on, so I will be brief. I accept the fact that this bill will not be voted on before the parliament is prorogued, but I do want to table it so that it can be out for public consultation during the break.

This bill is in relation to amending the Local Government Act to deal with the litter problem in South Australia. The state litter laws are rubbish. While South Australia has traditionally had lower levels of litter than other states because of our container deposit legislation—which has been so successful—we still have significant amounts of litter.

In any one year in South Australia only about 150 litter fines are issued for the whole of South Australia. In the most recent year measured, only 212 fines were issued, with around 75 of those being for hoon drivers laying rubber on the road, so that the number of traditional litter fines totals around 150 per year. There are over 5 million cigarette butts in South Australia in the litter stream each year and we issue just 150 fines. I think it is pathetic.

If we cast our eyes interstate, we see that Victoria issues over 22,000 litter fines a year: 150 in South Australia; 22,000 in Victoria. Something is wrong and something is seriously wrong with our fine system with litter. While we would like to believe that South Australians are less likely to litter than Victorians, that does not explain the huge difference. Frankly, our litter laws are pathetic. I will be introducing this bill to parliament, which is based on the Liberal Party policy at the 2006 election, and it addresses the following issues: the fine under the current act is $315 and it is simply too large. Many council officers will not issue such a large fine for the littering of small objects, such as bus tickets or ATM receipts.

This bill proposes that the fines be tiered. Littering of small items, such as bus tickets, attracts a fine of around $80, other littering $160, and then there is the new offence, called aggravated litter, which is litter that can hurt people, such as broken bottles, needles or lit cigarette butts, and they attract a fine of around $315. This tiered system works well in a number of other states. Victoria has a very good community littering prevention program, where citizens can report others for littering. It has been a great success in Victoria. Of the 28,000 expiation notices issued in Victoria, 22,000 are paid; a 75 per cent strike rate.

The scheme is simple: citizens report cases of littering to the authorities who issue an expiation notice. This works well for littering from vehicles, such as cars and boats, and as with speeding fines, people can indicate who else was responsible for the litter if it was not them. The community has accepted this program with enthusiasm in Victoria, with paid fines in Victoria growing from 8,142 in 2001-02, to over 22,000 in 2007-08. South Australia stumbles along at 150 fines a year. So, this bill introduces this program to South Australia.

Other forms of littering also need to be addressed. Chewing gum would be defined as litter. Councils spend hundreds of thousands of dollars paying to clean up chewing gum. Litterers will pay for that under this bill. Unauthorised posters stuck on stobie poles and fences advertising upcoming events become litter and would be fined. As police and councils have been so reluctant to issue fines, more agencies will be given the power to issue fines, including KESAB itself, with properly trained officers. KESAB, which has over 100,000 volunteers, contributes some $40 million worth of time annually, has been lobbying the government for years for it to enforce litter control measures more strongly. The government has ignored these pleas.

Litter is ugly, it is preventable and causes damage to our environment. We should not tolerate it and my bill seeks to modernise the litter laws and, as I say, I accept the fact that I will have to reintroduce this once the parliament is prorogued, but the matter is now public for public consultation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Koutsantonis.