NEIGHBOURHOOD DISPUTE RESOLUTION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 July 2010.)

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (11:04): The member for Fisher has called for the creation of a neighbourhood ombudsman. The government understands and appreciates the circumstances that have motivated the member for Fisher to suggest this option. I am well aware that disputes between neighbours can be quite problematic. Councils are regularly involved in these disputes as they, along with their agencies, have some relevant powers in relation to matters such as development, the keeping of dogs, cats and other animals, noise, waste removal, overhanging trees, parking and driveway access, and unsightly premises.

The Local Government (Accountability Framework) Amendment Act 2009 includes provisions designed to improve the procedures for a council's review of one of its decisions on application by a person with sufficient interest in that decision. It also added conciliation to mediation and mutual evaluation as options for use in dealing with disputes between a person and the council.

These amendments should be of assistance in some cases when the council is empowered to act in relation to the issue in a neighbourhood dispute but has decided not to take any action or has taken some action that is disputed by one of the parties. The government will not be supporting this particular measure which would require it to fund and maintain a new statutory office, but it will continue to apply available resources to collaborative efforts involving existing agencies which are designed to improve the current system.

For example, work is being done on developing a service model for environmental nuisance incidents between key agencies of state government and representatives of local council and the Local Government Association. This initiative, led by the Environment Protection Authority, seeks to develop a mechanism for dealing with the impact of environmental nuisance issues within our community. This is an area where residents and commercial interests can come into conflict over everything from noisy parties to loud air conditioners, building and construction work noise, and dust emissions. Backyard businesses can also be a problem with spray-painting fumes, smoke from burning in the open, power tools and brick cutting noises, and use of industrial and commercial machines of various kinds.

The agencies have analysed and quantified the number and type of incidents and complaints, using statistics from the EPA call centre and feedback from SA Police and local councils on the type and volume of complaints from the community. A significant proportion of complaints received by the EPA are currently resolved through correspondence sent to both the complainant and alleged offender. This system appears to be working well for resolution of the majority of complaints. There appears to be significant potential for unresolved complaints to be addressed via Community Mediation Services. This free service currently deals with many neighbourhood and community disputes successfully, using a process of complaints management and dispute resolution.

The government is currently looking at ways to provide greater coverage for Community Mediation Services in partnership arrangements with local government. The LGA has indicated that it believes there is a role for state and local governments to collaborate in developing options to mitigate issues associated with increased residential densities and other neighbourhood friction arising from contemporary lifestyles. The further development of existing mediation and community dispute resolution alternatives was one option identified by the LGA. The LGA is seeking state funding for these improvements, and a more collaborative approach might be to fund the service from a number of sectors that would benefit from the service.

As I said, while the government will not be supporting this bill, it will be continuing its efforts to ensure that residents can access comprehensive information and guidance about issues that commonly give rise to neighbourhood disputes and are assisted to resolve these as expeditiously as possible.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:09): I rise to speak to the Neighbourhood Dispute Resolution Bill 2010. I note that the Hon. Bob Such, the member for Fisher, on 22 July 2010 introduced the Neighbourhood Dispute Resolution Bill 2010. Through this bill it is sought to establish a neighbourhood ombudsman as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for residential neighbours.

According to the member for Fisher, it is based on a similar ombudsman in New South Wales, but the research done on this side of the house indicates that there is no statutory officer providing compulsory conciliation for neighbours in New South Wales. We believe that the officer the member for Fisher refers to in that context is a commissioner in the Land and Environment Court.

I note that this is the third time that the member for Fisher has introduced such a bill. The second of these bills was tabled on 25 September 2008. The Liberal Party opposed that bill on the basis of the cost of another bureaucracy. Compulsory conciliation should not be forced on people, particularly if they would prefer to pursue their legal rights. There was no requirement in the bill that the ombudsman not act contrary to the law, and also there are already a range of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in place.

The Liberal Party has undertaken consultation. We consulted the Law Society and they expressed concern at the open-ended nature of a person who could be subject to notices from the ombudsman. The Bar Association questioned the need for such a body, given the presence of community legal centres and the Magistrates Court. The Bar Association also opposed the range of powers of compulsion to be conferred on the ombudsman. I indicate that the opposition will not support the bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:11): They taught me maths at school so I can count.

An honourable member: Did they?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: It was a long time ago. We used an abacus.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The underlying rationale for this was that I do not believe the existing structures or mechanisms adequately deal with low-level neighbourhood disputes. I can understand why the Bar Association of lawyers do not want it, because they make money out of representing people in neighbourhood disputes. The LGA councils run a mile from neighbourhood disputes. One of the difficulties at the moment is that you cannot compel people to participate in mediation. It is pretty hard to mediate when it is only one person.

So there are deficiencies in the system. This may not have been the ideal, perfect model, but at least it sought to bring about a resolution of ongoing neighbourhood disputes. I am sure every member in here has had some. When they come to the attention of their office, the member is probably missing because they do not want to deal with them.

I have had some incredibly petty ones over time. I had one where the lights from a backyard were so bright the people across the road could not have their meal without pulling a blind down. The way I addressed that was I went to the people who had the bright lights, because they were getting tires let down and other things, and I said, 'Look, do you realise that if that light shone in a motorist's eye, you could cause an accident and you might be sued?' 'Oh, we had better change it then.' They would not change it for their neighbour but they changed it for the fear of dazzling a motorist.

The member for Hammond is correct. The reference to New South Wales is in relation to their commissioner in the Land and Environment Court. They have a very sensible approach where a person qualified in arboriculture goes out and makes a determination about a tree causing problems with neighbours. I know the person. She is a real person, even though her name is Judy Fakes. She goes out and says, 'That tree has to come down,' or it has to be pruned or whatever. That works brilliantly over there and, I think, maybe through the tree regulations, we might adopt something similar here.

Anyway, I appreciate that this bill will die through lack of support, but I do not believe we have got it right yet in terms of dealing with low-level neighbourhood disputes. The more serious ones will end up in the court, but where you have silly behaviour going on that inconveniences people and diminishes the amenity of their lifestyle I think we need some new structure and new process.

Second reading negatived.