Bills

Local Nuisance and Litter Control Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (12:12): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I will read some of the speech and then seek to insert the remainder in Hansard. Local Nuisance and Litter Control Bill 2015: littering and activities that cause nuisance such as noise, smoke and dust can affect our enjoyment of local areas.

The Local Nuisance and Litter Control Bill is innovative and necessary legislation that will considerably improve local nuisance and litter management services to the community. The bill will result in improved amenity for communities, in particular reduce litter and illegal legal dumping in towns, regions and cities throughout the state. Communities currently experience considerable confusion about the delineation between state and local government roles and responsibilities related to local nuisance issues. Councils are better placed to respond quickly and effectively to most local nuisance issues as they have a local presence.

Further, community expectation of local government with regard to policing environmental protection matters is very high. A community survey undertaken by the Local Government Association in 2006 indicated that 66 per cent of respondents considered councils are best placed to manage nuisance issues. South Australia is currently the only state in which local government responsibility in this area is not legislated to some extent.

State government, through the EPA, has been negotiating with local government for more than 20 years to find better solutions for dealing with local nuisance issues. In 2012, the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, having inquired into the operation of the EPA, recommended in its 56^th report that legislative reform be considered to clearly define the responsibilities of the EPA and other authorities, including local councils, with regard to dealing with these issues.

In 2013, the LGA established a Local Excellence Expert Panel consisting of the Hon. Greg Crafter AO, retired judge Christine Trenorden, and Professor Graham Sansom to establish a vision for the council of the future. A recommendation of this panel was that the responsibility for investigating and resolving matters of local environment nuisance be accepted as part of the function of a regional council on condition that the EPA provide support in the form of expertise and equipment. This bill will deliver on both of these recommendations.

The object of the act is to improve the management of nuisance and littering across the state. The bill will protect individuals and communities from local nuisance and reduce the prevalence of litter across South Australia, particularly along roadsides and in tourist and shopping precincts. In so doing, the bill will improve the amenity value of local areas and promote the creation and maintenance of a clean and healthy environment.

The bill will clearly delineate responsibility for managing nuisance in the community to local government, reinforcing the responsibilities of the EPA to manage nuisance on EPA-licensed sites under the Environment Protection Act 1993. The bill will limit the responsibility of local government to nuisance issues. More serious offences will continue to be referred to the EPA. The bill will provide consistency of service to the community across council boundaries, better regulatory tools for enforcement, and will deal more effectively with vexatious complaints.

The bill proposes a modern legislative scheme for litter control in South Australia that will provide considerable deterrence, including higher penalties for more serious offences; improvements in the usability of surveillance for evidence gathering in the case of illegal dumping by linking an offence to the registered owner of a vehicle; non-government organisations to undertake compliance activities subject to approval; and the establishment of a public litter reporting scheme in South Australia.

I seek leave to insert the remainder in Hansard without reading it.

Leave granted.

Benefits to the community

The benefits to the community will be significant. In relation to nuisance the Bill establishes consistency in the management of nuisance across South Australia and provides the community with a more effective local service for the management of nuisance complaints. The litter elements of the Bill will benefit the community through providing modern tools for policing litter and illegal dumping, providing heightened deterrence, and will ultimately result in a cleaner environment, particularly in peri-urban and regional areas where illegal dumping is a considerable problem. This benefit will have flow on positive effects to councils by improving amenity and reducing ongoing litter management and illegal dumping clean-up costs.

Consultation

Consultation to develop the Bill has been extensive. A discussion paper was released in March 2013 to commence consultation directly with local government. Five regional meetings, across the State, were held with local councils to support consultation on the discussion paper.

A Ministerial Working Group was established to guide the drafting of legislation and provide governance for the project. The Working Group consisted of representatives from the EPA, LGA, Department of Health and Ageing, SA Police, KESAB and the Office for Local Government.

The LGA also established a reference group to assist with development and review of the detail of the drafting instructions. The reference group consists of local government officers from the City of Charles Sturt, City of Salisbury, Rural City of Murray Bridge, and Alexandrina Council as well as representatives from Eastern Health Authority, LGA and the EPA. The reference group met regularly over an 18 month period.

In July, 2015, the Bill was released for public consultation for a six-week period. The consultation process included direct communication with local councils, the LGA of South Australia, regional local government associations, Members of Parliament, industry groups, fast food businesses, government agencies, and other relevant stakeholders. Six public meetings were held across the State; in Adelaide, Karoonda, Naracoorte, Wudinna, Victor Harbor, and Port Pirie. The consultation has shaped the Bill into legislation that is innovative in its structure and tools, and limits the resource intensiveness of regulatory practice to local government.

Key elements

The Bill provides a straightforward definition of local nuisance that is designed to evolve with the needs of local government over time through the ability to prescribe nuisances under Schedule 1. The Bill also establishes three distinct classes of litter to differentiate between the seriousness of different types of offending. There is general litter that is of a benign nature, class B hazardous litter (that includes litter types that may cause an immediate danger or hazard), and class A hazardous litter (initially limited to asbestos). Each class of litter is also structured so that it may evolve over time with the needs of local government to manage new forms of litter as necessary.

Liability of vehicle owners

It is commonplace to see cigarette butts and other litter thrown from vehicles, and illegally dumped waste has typically been transported by vehicle to its destination, particularly where large quantities are involved. Currently, it is not sufficient to identify the license plate details and a description of the vehicle to prove a vehicle-related littering or illegal dumping offence.

To improve enforcement ability, the Bill seeks to apply an onus on the owner of the vehicle for an offence committed in association with or from that vehicle, which would bring South Australian laws into line with all other Australian jurisdictions. This function operates similar to speed camera and red-light camera infringements, where the owner of a vehicle has the option to declare a third party was responsible for the vehicle at the time of the offence.

This provision will also be critical to establish enforceable public litter reporting as it will allow for an expiation to be issued to the owner of a vehicle identified via licence plate and other identifying attributes under such a programme.

Public litter reporting

While it is possible to report littering in South Australia to Police, there is currently no dedicated public litter reporting programme in place. This is in part because it is difficult to determine the offender under current South Australian laws. The Bill, in addition to applying responsibility to the owner of a vehicle, contains a provision to allow for improved public reporting of litter by formalising a citizen's notification of littering. This provision stipulates that the contents of the notification may constitute evidence of the offence, which will allow expiations to be issued as a result of public litter reports, as is the case in all other Australian jurisdictions.

Significant provision for civil remedy by affected parties

The Bill allows for courts to order civil remedies. This allows councils, administering bodies, individuals or other body corporates who have been impacted by a contravention or a potential contravention to apply to the courts for a civil remedy.

The inclusion of civil remedies provisions will provide an alternative route for complaint resolution that may be exercised separately from the council or administering body. This will be particularly useful in circumstances where a council or administering body has been unable to determine a contravention through its own investigation and is unable to progress a complaint to the satisfaction of the complainant.

Ability to negotiate a civil penalty

This provision will allow councils or administering bodies to enter into negotiation, or apply to the relevant court, for a civil penalty. The EPA has used civil penalties successfully in administering the Environment Protection Act 1993.

The Bill contains an option for the Minister, councils or administering bodies to negotiate a civil penalty with an alleged offender rather than applying to the court for a criminal penalty. This will provide a lower cost alternative to prosecution that benefits the regulator as well as the alleged offender. Negotiations are voluntary and if an alleged offender chooses not to negotiate; the Minister, council or administering body has the opportunity to apply to the court for a penalty.

The Bill contains another option for the Minister, councils or administering bodies to apply to the Environment Resources and Development Court for a civil penalty as an alternative to criminal prosecution. Civil penalties may only be used for offences that do not require proof of intention or recklessness.

Compliance standards set via regulation

The Minister will be able to establish, via regulation, standards to further guide the implementation of the Bill. There will be provision for standards to be constructed to guide evidentiary provisions that would prove an offence. This provision will not limit the ability to prove an offence where a standard is not in place but be used as an improved determination where it is possible to define such standards. Councils will also be able to permit activities to occur outside of the standards where appropriate. The Minister will be required to consult with councils, administering bodies, the LGA, and the community in developing a standard.

Councils may work together to address nuisances

The Local Government Act 1999 allows for councils to establish regional subsidiaries. The Bill will support such arrangements by allowing for sharing of authorised officers between councils, and for other administering bodies to act on behalf of one or more councils.

Regional arrangements will allow smaller councils in particular to administer the Act by agreements with adjoining councils. These provisions will allow for one authorised officer to undertake duties across multiple council areas. However, such arrangements may also benefit larger metropolitan councils given their proximity to each other.

Other organisations may undertake compliance

The Minister may prescribe other organisations or public authorities as administering bodies through regulation for all or part of the legislation. Administration of the legislation by such agencies may be limited by the Minister, including the limitation of powers for authorised officers. Administration of this legislation in state waters will need to be performed by a state government agency or administering body, noting that councils do not necessarily have jurisdiction within navigable waters of the State.

This provision allows broader access than local government and enables greater enforcement. For example, KESAB, who has advocated litter prevention for over 40 years, has shown interest in taking on an enforcement role. Such a provision would allow this to occur, subject to approval from the Minister. It would also allow other organisations to contract to local government to provide this service. There is precedence in this approach with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) administering the Animal Welfare Act 1985.

Where an organisation seeks to be an administering body (i.e. not a council) the Minister must consult with the LGA. The Minister may approve an administering body with conditions. For example, a condition may be applied that, in order to operate in the area of a council there must be an agreement in place with that council to do so.

The Minister may also allow administering bodies that are not councils to regulate all or some council generated nuisance or littering as part of the prescription/authorisation process. This would allow KESAB, as an example, to regulate litter from council activities.

This Bill will provide significant benefits to local communities across the State through the implementation of best practice litter regulation resulting in cleaner streets, towns, cities and regions through. The Bill creates flexibility in the regulatory options available to councils to manage local nuisances and innovative regulatory tools that will reduce the incidence of littering.

I commend the Bill to Members.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

3—Interpretation

This clause contains definitions of terms used in the Bill.

Part 2—Objects and application of Act

4—Objects of Act

This clause sets out the objects of the Bill to which the Minister, councils and other persons or bodies involved in the administration of the Bill must have regard and seek to further. The objects are—

to protect individuals and communities from local nuisance;

to prevent littering;

to improve the amenity value of local areas;

to promote the creation and maintenance of a clean and healthy environment.

5—Interaction with other Acts

Subclause (1) provides that the Bill is in addition to, and does not limit, the provisions of any other law of the State.

Subclause (2) provides that the Bill is not intended to be construed so as to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other enactment for an offence that is also punishable by the Bill, or from being liable under any other law of the State to any penalty or punishment that is higher than a penalty or punishment provided by the Bill.

Subclause (3) provides that nothing in the Bill affects or limits a right or remedy that exists apart from the Bill and compliance with the Bill does not necessarily indicate that a common law duty of care has been satisfied.

Subclause (4) provides that the Bill does not apply in relation to an activity authorised by an environmental authorisation within the meaning of the Environment Protection Act 1993.

However, under subclause (5), the Bill will apply in relation to the travelling by road of a vehicle used in connection with the following prescribed activities of environmental significance as specified in Schedule 1 of the Environment Protection Act 1993:

a waste transport business (category A);

a waste transport business (category B);

dredging;

earthworks drainage.

6—Territorial and extra-territorial application of Act

This clause provides for extra-territorial application of the Bill if conduct engaged in outside of the State results in local nuisance within the State and that conduct would, if engaged in within the State, constitute a contravention of the Bill.

Subclause (2) clarifies that the conduct could include a failure to act.

Part 3—Administration

Division 1—Councils

7—Functions of councils

This clause provides that councils are the principal authority for dealing with local nuisance and littering in their respective areas.

The functions of a council are—

to take action to manage local nuisance and littering within its area;

to cooperate with any other person or body involved in the administration of the Bill;

to provide, or support the provision of, educational information within its area to help detect, prevent and manage local nuisance and littering;

such other functions as are assigned to the council by the Bill.

Councils must, in performing their functions, have regard to—

the guidelines adopted or prescribed by regulation for managing unreasonable complainant conduct;

any other guidelines adopted or prescribed by regulation to assist councils in performing their functions.

8—Annual reports by councils

This clause requires councils to include details of the performance of its functions under the Bill in its annual report.

Division 2—Administering bodies

9—Administering bodies

This clause enables the Governor to declare a body to be an administering body for the purposes of the administration or enforcement of the Act and to confer certain functions conferred on councils (under the Act) on the body and its officers or employees. This is to enable bodies like KESAB to be involved in the administration or enforcement of the Act.

10—Delegation

This clause enables an administering body to delegate a function conferred on it to a committee of the body, an officer or employee of the body or an officer or employee of the body for the time being occupying a particular office or position.

11—Periodic reports by administering bodies

This clause requires an administering body to report to the Minister at such intervals as the Minister requires on the performance of its functions. The report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

Division 3—Authorised officers

12—Authorised officers

This clause provides that all police officers are authorised officers for the purposes of the Act, and enables the appointment of officers by the Minister or councils.

13—Identity cards

This clause provides for the issuing of identity cards to authorised officers. An authorised officer must produce the identity card for inspection by a person in relation to whom the officer intends to exercise powers under the Act.

14—Powers of authorised officers

This clause sets out the powers of authorised officers in connection with the administration or enforcement of the Act. Under this clause, an authorised officer may—

at any reasonable time, enter or inspect any premises or vehicle;

during the course of the inspection of any premises or vehicle—

ask questions of any person found in or on the premises or vehicle;

open a part of, or thing in or on, the premises or vehicle;

inspect any substance, material or thing found in or on the premises or vehicle;

take and remove samples of any substance, material or thing found in or on the premises or vehicle;

require any person to produce any plans, specifications, books, papers or documents;

examine, copy and take extracts from any plans, specifications, books, papers or documents;

take photographs, films or video recordings;

take measurements, make notes and carry out tests;

remove, or seize and retain, any substance, material or thing that has or may have been used in, or may constitute evidence of, a contravention of the Act;

require a person who the authorised officer reasonably suspects has committed, is committing or is about to commit, an offence against the Act, to state the person's full name and usual place of residence and to produce evidence of the person's identity;

require any person to answer any question that may be relevant to the administration or enforcement of the Act;

give directions as to the stopping or movement of a vehicle;

give any other directions reasonably required in connection with the exercise of a power conferred by any of the paragraphs above or otherwise in connection with the administration or enforcement of the Act.

The remaining subclauses provide safeguards around the reasonable use of force and other potential abuses of power by authorised officers, and prohibits the hindrance or obstruction of authorised officers.

15—Limit of area of authorised officers appointed by councils

This clause enables authorised officers appointed by council to exercise their powers outside the council area including within the area of another council or outside the State if they believe on reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed under the Act within the council area that requires the exercise of powers outside the council area.

16—Provisions relating to seizure

This clause deals with seized items and sets out procedures for their forfeiture or return to their owners and entitlement of owners to compensation. It also enables the Minister or a relevant council to dispose of forfeited items in such manner as the Minister or council may direct, including by sale, from which the proceeds are to go to the Minister or council as the case may be.

Subclause (2) clarifies that the section does not apply in relation to items removed or disposed of under clause 31 following non-compliance with the requirements of a nuisance abatement notice or litter abatement notice, or items collected, removed or disposed of by a council under the Local Government Act 1999.

Part 4—Offences

Division 1—Local nuisance

17—Meaning of local nuisance

This clause is definitional in nature and specifies what constitutes and what does not constitute a local nuisance. A local nuisance is—

any adverse effect on an amenity value of an area that—

is caused by—

noise, odour, smoke, fumes, aerosols or dust;

animals (including insects), whether dead or alive;

any other agent or class of agent declared by Schedule 1;

unreasonably interferes with or is likely to interfere unreasonably with the enjoyment of the area by persons occupying a place within, or lawfully resorting to, the area

insanitary conditions on premises that unreasonably interfere with or are likely to interfere unreasonably with the enjoyment of premises occupied by persons in the vicinity

unsightly conditions, of a kind declared by Schedule 1, on premises caused by human activity or a failure to act;

a contravention of, or failure to comply with a provision of an environment protection policy, or of any other Act or law, declared by Schedule 1;

anything declared by Schedule 1 to constitute a local nuisance.

However, a local nuisance does not include anything declared by Schedule 1 not to constitute a local nuisance. See Schedule 1 for a list of these things.

The clause further clarifies when conditions on premises will be taken to be insanitary, namely if an authorised officer reasonably believes that—

the premises are so filthy or neglected that there is a risk of infestation by rodents or other pests; or

offensive material or odours are emitted from the premises.

18—Causing local nuisance

This clause contains the two offences relating to local nuisance.

The first is the offence of carrying on an activity intentionally or recklessly and with the knowledge that local nuisance will result. The maximum penalty for this offence is $60,000 for a body corporate or $30,000 for a natural person.

The second is the offence of carrying on an activity that results in local nuisance. Intention does not form an element of this offence. The maximum penalty for this offence is $20,000 for a body corporate or $10,000 for a natural person.

Liability for causing local nuisance rests prima facie with the occupier or person in charge of the place where the local nuisance-causing activity was carried on.

The clause also clarifies that the term 'carrying on an activity' includes a failure to act.

19—Exemptions from application of section 18

This clause enables councils to exempt persons in respect of certain potentially local nuisance-causing activities from the application of clause 18, for example, construction or demolition works, concerts or events or activities using amplified sound. Before granting an exemption, a council will need to be satisfied as to the adequacy of an applicant's site nuisance management plan to prevent, minimise or address any adverse effects on the amenity value of the area and also that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the granting of the exemption. An exemption must be published on a council's website.

20—Person must cease local nuisance if asked

A person must, on request by an authorised officer, cease an activity, or remove from premises owned or occupied by the person any substance, material or thing that, in the opinion of the authorised officer, is causing local nuisance. The maximum penalty for this offence is $5,000 or an expiation fee of $210.

21—Regulations for purposes of Division

This clause enables regulations to be made for the purposes of the Division including regulations that—

prohibit, restrict or regulate an activity, or the use or sale of a substance, material or thing, or the use or installation of equipment or infrastructure relevant to the prevention or management of local nuisance;

prohibit, restrict or regulate the manufacture, possession, transport, storage, use or disposal of a substance, material, equipment or thing that causes local nuisance; and

provide for the removal or destruction of a substance, material, equipment or thing that causes local nuisance;

provide for compliance standards, and testing or monitoring standards, procedures or techniques (including sensory techniques), to be applied or used by authorised officers in detecting or identifying local nuisance;

provide for the taking, analysis or testing of samples relevant to detecting, identifying or monitoring local nuisance including—

the persons who may take, analyse or test those samples;

the places where those samples may be analysed or tested;

the reporting of the results of the analysis or testing of those samples.

Division 2—Litter control

22—Disposing of litter

Subclause (1) sets out the principal offence of littering, namely, a person must not dispose of litter onto any land or into any waters. The tiered penalty structure means that there are higher penalties for disposing of larger amounts of litter or different classes of litter, ranging from class A hazardous litter which is the most toxic to general litter which is the least toxic.

Subclauses (2) and (3) clarify which activities will or will not fall within the principal offence.

Subclause (4) sets out the defences to the offence, namely, disposal on one's own property or on some other person's property with their consent, or accidental disposal, provided all reasonable steps are taken to retrieve the litter.

Class A hazardous litter is defined as domestic or commercial waste comprised of—

asbestos;

material containing asbestos;

any substance, material or thing of a kind prescribed by regulation;

a combination of litter referred to in a preceding paragraph of this definition and any other litter.

Class B hazardous litter is defined as—

when disposed of onto land or into waters—

live cigarettes or cigarette butts;

used syringes;

waste glass (whether or not broken);

any substance, material or thing of a kind prescribed by regulation;

a combination of litter referred to in a preceding paragraph of this definition and general litter;

when disposed of into waters—any disused or decommissioned vehicle, appliance or device or part of such a vehicle, appliance or device or any other structure or thing that an authorised officer reasonably suspects is being used, or is intended for use, in the waters as an artificial reef.

General litter is defined as any solid or liquid domestic or commercial waste (other than hazardous litter), including—

cigarettes or cigarette butts;

chewing gum;

food or food scraps;

beverage containers;

packaging;

clothing, footwear or other personal accessories or personal items;

furniture;

garden cuttings or clippings or other plant matter;

garden landscaping material;

dead or diseased animals;

vehicles or vehicle parts;

machinery or equipment used in farming or agriculture;

demolition material (including, but not limited to, clay, concrete, rock, sand, soil or other inert mineralogical matter);

building or construction material or equipment;

any material or thing used or generated in the course of carrying on a prescribed activity of environmental significance;

any substance, material or thing of a kind prescribed by regulation.

Further key terms used in section 22 are defined in subclause (5).

23—Bill posting

A person must not post a bill on property without the consent of the owner or occupier. The maximum penalty for this offence is $10,000 or an expiation fee of $315. Subclause (2) additionally makes a person who distributed or authorised the distribution of such a bill guilty of an offence with a maximum penalty of $20,000 for a body corporate or $10,000 for a natural person. The clause further sets out a defence to the second offence, namely lack of foreseeability, and enables a court to order compensation for loss or damage to the property caused by the commission of either offence.

24—Litterer must remove litter if asked

This clause requires a person, if requested by an authorised officer, to remove any bills or other litter posted or disposed of in contravention of the Division and to dispose of it as directed. Failure to do so attracts a maximum penalty of $5,000 or a $210 expiation fee.

25—Citizen's notification

This clause enables evidence of the commission of an offence to be provided by way of a citizen's notification. It will enable the making of regulations allowing a member of the public to forward a citizen's notification (which could include a photograph) of suspected littering or bill posting activity which constitutes evidence of the matters in the notification.

Division 3—Miscellaneous

26—Liability of vehicle owners

This clause presumes an owner of a vehicle to have committed an offence if an activity is carried on in, at, from, or in connection with the use of the vehicle, resulting in an offence against section 18, 22 or 23 (a principal offence).

The clause provides further safeguards for owners and alleged principal offenders and evidentiary provisions to maximise a successful enforcement regime under the Act whilst ensuring that the risk of convicting the wrong person is avoided. Precedents for this clause are to be found in the Road Traffic Act 1961.

The clause does not apply if—

the principal offence is an offence against section 22 (disposing of litter); and

the vehicle from which the litter was disposed of is—

a taxi; or

a train, tram, bus, ferry, passenger ship, or other public transport vehicle that was being used for a public purpose at the time; and

the litter was disposed of by a passenger of the vehicle.

27—Defence of due diligence

This clause allows for a defence of taking all reasonable precautions and exercising due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence under section 18 (causing local nuisance) or 22 (disposing of litter).

The defence, as applied in relation to an offence committed in the course of undertaking a prescribed activity of environmental significance (to the extent referred to in section 5(5)), requires proof that the person—

had taken reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the circumstances that gave rise to the offence including by putting in place any systems or safeguards that might reasonably be expected to be in place; and

complied with the requirements of any notice under this Act that related to preventing or managing the circumstances that gave rise to the offence; and

as soon as becoming aware of the circumstances that gave rise to the offence—

reported those circumstances to the Minister or the relevant council; and

took all reasonable steps necessary to prevent or reduce those circumstances.

A person may, despite availing themselves of a defence under this clause, be considered to have contravened section 18 or 22 for the purposes of—

any proceedings under section 33 in respect of the contravention;

the issuing or enforcement of a nuisance abatement notice or litter abatement notice in respect of the contravention;

the making by a court of an order under section 45 in proceedings for an offence in respect of the contravention.

The clause does not apply in relation to a person who is charged with an offence under section 46.

28—Alternative finding

If, in proceedings for an offence against the Part, the court is not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the offence charged but is satisfied that the defendant is guilty of an offence against the Part that carries a lower maximum penalty (determined according to relative maximum monetary penalties), the court may find the defendant guilty of the latter offence.

29—Notification to EPA of serious or material environmental harm

This clause requires a council that has reason to believe that an offence committed under section 18 or section 22 has, or may have, resulted in material environmental harm, or serious environmental harm, within the meaning of the Environment Protection Act 1993, to notify the Environment Protection Authority of that belief.

Part 5—Nuisance abatement notices and litter abatement notices

30—Nuisance and litter abatement notices

This clause provides for the issuing by the Minister or a council of nuisance abatement notices or litter abatement notices and is a mechanism for securing compliance with Part 4 of the Act. Such a notice enables the Minister or council to require a person to undertake a range of measures to achieve compliance. If urgent action is required, the person may be issued with an emergency notice which may, at least initially, bypass some of the procedural requirements of a written notice. The person may appeal against a notice to the ERD Court. Failure to comply with a notice is an offence attracting a maximum penalty of $60,000 for a body corporate and $30,000 for a natural person or an expiation fee of $500. It will also be an offence, attracting a maximum penalty of $25,000, to hinder or obstruct a person complying with a notice.

31—Action on non-compliance with notice

This clause provides the Minister or a council with the option of taking action required by a notice if the notice is not complied with by the person to whom it was issued. The action itself may be taken by an authorised officer or some other person authorised by the Minister or council. The clause further provides for cost recovery options available to the Minister or council as against the person in default, including debt recovery, interest, and having a charge imposed on land in favour of the Minister or council in accordance with a scheme prescribed by the regulations.

32—Appeals

This clause sets out procedures relating to an appeal to the ERD Court against a nuisance abatement notice or litter abatement notice.

Part 6—Civil remedies and penalties

33—Civil remedies

This clause provides that applications for orders of an injunctive nature may be made to the ERD Court. The Court may also make orders for damages (including exemplary damages). Subclauses (4) and (5) limit the Court's power to make awards of exemplary damages. The clause further provides for procedural matters around who has standing to make an application and the right to make an application in a representative capacity. The Court may make interim orders including orders made ex parte pending the final determination of a matter. Under subclause (18), if, on an application under the clause alleging a contravention of the Act, the Court is satisfied that the respondent has not contravened the Act and has suffered loss or damage as a result of the actions of the applicant, the Court may require the applicant to pay the respondent an amount in compensation.

34—Minister or council may recover civil penalty in respect of contravention

This clause provides for civil penalties. The Minister or a relevant council may, if satisfied that a person has contravened the Act, recover (by negotiation or in civil proceedings in the Environment, Resources and Development Court) an amount as a civil penalty in respect of the contravention instead of prosecuting the person for the relevant offence. Other features of the scheme are:

a civil penalty can only be pursued if the relevant offence does not require proof of intent or some other state of mind and the factors to be considered in deciding whether to use the provision or prosecute in the ordinary way, are the seriousness of the contravention, the previous record of the offender and any other relevant factors;

the notice must be served on the person (at least 21 days before any application to the court is made under the provision) advising the person that he or she may elect to be prosecuted in relation to the contravention, and if the person does so elect, civil proceedings cannot be commenced under the provision;

civil penalties negotiated by the Minister or council are capped at the maximum penalty specified under the Act for the relevant offence and the amount of any economic benefit acquired by the person or accruing to the person as a result of the contravention however the court can order, as a civil penalty in respect of a contravention, payment of an amount not exceeding the criminal penalty for the relevant offence and the amount of economic benefit as referred to above;

civil penalty proceedings are stayed if criminal proceedings are commenced in respect of the same contravention and can only be resumed if the person is not found to be guilty of the offence (note that the wording of subsection (1) would preclude the commencement of criminal proceedings in respect of the contravention if a civil penalty has already been recovered from the person in respect of the contravention, so this provision is only relevant where civil proceedings have not yet been finalised);

the time limit for bringing civil penalty proceedings is three years or, with the authorisation of the Attorney-General, up to 10 years;

the court can, in an application for a civil penalty, make an order for the payment of costs as the court thinks just and reasonable.

Part 7—Miscellaneous

35—Constitution of the Environment, Resources and Development Court

The Environment, Resources and Development Court is, when exercising jurisdiction under this Act, to be constituted in the same way as it is when exercising jurisdiction under the Environment Protection Act 1993.

36—Delegation by Minister

This clause sets out the powers of the Minister to delegate functions and powers conferred on the Minister under the Act.

37—Service of notices or other documents

This clause sets out a range of optional methods of effecting service where the Act requires or authorises a notice or other document to be given or served on a person. Companies may be served in accordance with the provisions of the Corporations Law.

38—Immunity

This clause relieves the Minister or an authorised officer or any other person engaged in the administration of this Act from personal liability for an honest act or omission in the performance, exercise or discharge, or purported performance, exercise or discharge, of a function, power or duty under the Act. Subject to subclause (3), a liability that would, but for subclause (1), lie against a person lies instead against the Crown. A liability that would, but for subclause (1), lie against an officer, employee, agent or contractor of a council lies instead against the council.

39—Protection from liability

A failure by the Minister or a council to perform a function under this Act, does not give rise to any civil liability.

40—Statutory declarations

If a person is required by or under this Act to provide information to the Minister or a council, the Minister or council may require that the information be verified by statutory declaration and, in that event, the person will not be taken to have provided the information as required unless it has been so verified.

41—False or misleading information

This clause creates an offence of making a false or misleading statement in furnishing information or keeping a record under the Act. The offence attracts a maximum penalty of $50,000 for a body corporate and $20,000 for a natural person.

42—Confidentiality

This clause prevents a person from divulging any information gained in the administration of the Act relating to trade practices or financial matters except as authorised under the Act, by consent of the person from whom the information was obtained, for administration or enforcement purposes or for the purpose of legal proceedings arising out of the administration or the enforcement of the Act. The offence attracts a maximum penalty of $25,000.

43—Offences

This provides that proceedings for an offence under the Act may be commenced by—

the Director of Public Prosecutions;

the Minister;

an authorised officer;

a relevant council;

the chief executive officer of a relevant council;

a police officer;

a person acting on the written authority of the Minister.

44—Offences and Environment, Resources and Development Court

Offences constituted by the Act lie within the criminal jurisdiction of the Environment, Resources and Development Court.

45—Orders in respect of contraventions

Under this clause, a court may, incidental to criminal proceedings under the Act, order a person who, in contravening the Act, has caused injury to a person or loss or damage to property, to take specified action to make good any damage or prevent further damage and publicise their contravention of the Act and its consequences and any other orders made against the person and reimburse the Minister or council for costs incurred by it or to pay a person damages for injury, loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of the contravention. The court may also order the person to pay the Minister or council the value of any economic benefit acquired by the person as a result of the contravention. Any value of economic benefit paid to the Minister must be paid into the Environment Protection Fund.

46—Offences by bodies corporate

This clause is a standard clause operating across the statute book that attributes liability for offences committed by bodies corporate to directors of the body corporate or members of the governing body of the body corporate, subject to certain qualifications. This is so that directors and members cannot, in carrying on their activities as a body corporate, hide behind the corporate veil.

47—Continuing offences

This clause provides for continuing offences and allows a further penalty for each day on which the offence continues, of not more than one fifth of the maximum penalty applicable and, where a person has already been found guilty of an offence, allows for the conviction of the person for a further offence against the relevant provision and an additional penalty of not more than one fifth of the maximum applicable penalty for each further day on which the offence continues.

48—Recovery of administrative and technical costs associated with contraventions

Where the Minister or a council successfully prosecutes a person, the Minister or council may recover from the person costs and expenses incurred in relation to technical procedures undertaken for the purposes of the prosecution.

49—Assessment of reasonable costs and expenses

Where it is necessary to calculate the reasonable costs or expenses incurred by the Minister, a council or some other person or body, those costs and expenses are to be assessed by reference to the reasonable costs and expenses that would have been incurred in having the action taken by independent contractors engaged for that purpose.

50—Evidentiary provisions

This clause sets out a number of evidentiary provisions in relation to matters required to be proved by the Minister or a council in proceedings under the Act.

51—Regulations

This clause sets out the general regulation making powers under the Act.

Schedule 1—Meaning of local nuisance (section 17)

1—Things that are not local nuisance

This clause sets out, for the purposes of section 17, things that do not constitute local nuisance. They are:

noise or other nuisance from blasting operations carried out as part of a mining operation within the meaning of the Mines and Works Inspection Act 1920 or Mining Act 1971;

noise or other nuisance from any activity carried on in accordance with a program for environment protection and rehabilitation that is in force for mining operations under Part 10A of the Mining Act 1971;

noise or other nuisance from the keeping of animals in accordance with a development authorisation within the meaning of the Development Act 1993;

noise or other nuisance from any other activity carried on in accordance with an approval, consent, licence, permit, exemption or other authorisation or entitlement granted under any other Act (other than this Act);

noise or other nuisance from fireworks displays;

noise or other nuisance from sporting venues;

noise or other nuisance from community events run by or on behalf of a council (subject to any conditions imposed by the council);

noise or other nuisance from public infrastructure works;

noise or other nuisance from vehicles (other than vehicles operating within, or entering or leaving, business premises);

noise or other nuisance that may be the subject of proceedings under—

the Community Titles Act 1996; or

the Strata Titles Act 1988; or

the Residential Tenancies Act 1995;

an activity on, or noise emanating from, licensed premises within the meaning of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 in respect of which a complaint may be lodged with the Liquor Licensing Commissioner under section 106 of that Act;

behaviour in respect of which a complaint may be lodged with the Liquor Licensing Commissioner under section 106 of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997;

noise principally consisting of unamplified music or voices, or both, resulting from an activity at domestic premises;

noise from activities carried on in the normal course of a school, kindergarten, child care centre or place of worship;

noise created by a dog barking or otherwise that may be the subject of an offence under section 45A(5) of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995;

aircraft or railway noise;

noise caused by emergency vehicle sirens;

noise outside of the human audible range.

Schedule 2—Related amendments, repeal and transitional provisions

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Amendment provisions

This clause is formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Local Government Act 1999

2—Repeal of section 235

This clause repeals section 235 (Deposit of rubbish etc) as this will now be dealt with under Part 4 of the measure.

3—Amendment of section 236—Abandonment of vehicles

This clause removes the term 'or farm implement' from section 236 as abandonment of farm implements will now be dealt with under Part 4 of the measure.

4—Repeal of section 240

This clause deletes bill posting provisions from the Local Government Act 1999 as it is now to be dealt with under Part 4 of the measure.

5—Amendment of section 254—Power to make orders

This clause deletes items 1 (Unsightly condition of land) and 3 (Animals that may cause a nuisance or hazard) as these matters will now be dealt with under Part 4 of the measure.

Part 3—Amendment of Motor Vehicles Act 1959

6—Amendment of section 139D—Confidentiality

This clause makes a consequential amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 in relation to accessing information relating to registered vehicles for the purposes of Part 4 of the measure.

Part 4—Amendment of Summary Offences Act 1953

7—Repeal of section 48

This clause deletes bill posting provisions from the Summary Offences Act 1953 as it is now to be dealt with under Part 4 of the measure.

Part 5—Transitional provisions

8—Continuation of by-laws under section 240 of the Local Government Act 1999 relating to bill-posting

This clause continues council by-laws dealing with bill posting, and section 240 of the Local Government Act 1999 which enables those by-laws to be made, until such time as the by-law is revoked or expires (whichever is sooner).

9—Continuation of orders made under section 254 of the Local Government Act 1999

This clause continues the operation of certain orders under section 254 and section 254 itself until the order is complied with or for such longer period as may allow the person or council to exercise any rights or powers in relation to the order under Chapter 12 Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1999.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:16): I rise today to speak on behalf of the opposition and indicate to the house that I will be the lead speaker on this particular bill. I also indicate that we will be supporting the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Bill, which is the state government's response to continued calls to deal better with local nuisance issues, and these have been going on for some time.

For over 20 years, the Environment Protection Authority has been negotiating with local government to find better ways in which to deal with these issues. Of course, local government provides the shopfront to all our local communities and often nuisance and litter issues are brought to local government in the first instance anyway, so it stands to reason that we give them the legislative ability to deal with the issues that come to their desk.

In 2003, the EPA and local government formed a subcommittee to seek agreement on how best to share the responsibility of local nuisance and litter offences through the Environment Protection Act 1993, so it was some 13 years ago that that subcommittee was first formed. In 2005, amendments passed the parliament allowing local councils the opportunity to voluntarily opt in as an administering agency with cost-recovery provisions. Only one council in the entire state chose to do this and that was the Whyalla city council in May 2009.

In 2012, the Statutory Authorities Review Committee handed down its report, entitled, 'Inquiry into the Environment Protection Authority'. The inquiry, originating from questions raised about the EPA's role in site contamination, recommended that:

The Minister should consider the possibility of legislative reform to clearly define the roles and responsibilities between the EPA and other authorities (eg. local councils etc.) when dealing with minor/local environmental nuisances.

That is, in fact, recommendation No. 4.

In 2013, the Local Government Association established a Local Excellence Expert Panel to establish a vision for the council of the future. Membership of that committee included the Hon. Greg Crafter AO, retired judge Christine Trenorden and Professor Graham Sansom. That panel recommended that:

…the responsibility for investigating and resolving matters of local environment nuisance be accepted as part of the function of a regional Council on the condition that the EPA provide support in the form of expertise and equipment.

In essence, it is that recommendation that provides the background to this particular legislative bill.

As I said, this bill is set to deliver on this recommendation, improving the management and consistency of nuisance and littering offences across the state. Essentially, the bill gives local councils legislative power to deal with these issues and raises the penalties for illegal dumping. Key elements of the bill include establishing a public litter reporting scheme, and non-government organisations undertaking compliance activities subject to ministerial approval (predominantly councils, but can also include other organisations such as KESAB).

I note, as an aside, that KESAB this year is celebrating 50 years as an organisation here in this state. I know there is a motion, in fact it is my motion, before this parliament later to congratulate them on that and to highlight the good work they have done with regard to keeping the environment and the landscape in this state clean. Of course, one of the real success stories of litter management in this state, above any other state, I believe, is the fact that we can recycle our cans and bottles, and there is a deposit scheme available to residents of South Australia, which gives some incentive to not throw those bottles and cans out of the window, but to actually collect them up, and they have some value.

The other elements of the bill include introducing higher penalties for serious offences as a deterrence mechanism. People need to know that they are going to be stung if they break the law. Also, it enforces liability of vehicle owners for an offence committed in association with, or from, that vehicle; significant provision for civil remedies through the courts, with the ability to negotiate; and, lastly, enabling councils or other appointed body to work together to address nuisance offences.

The version of the bill that is before the parliament at the moment was introduced on 24 November 2015 and is a substantially amended version, following the consultation process. There was extensive consultation. I would like to make mention of the good work done by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, in the other place, shadow minister for environment, and also the good work that her office undertook in the consultation process while Michelle was off becoming a first-time mother. So congratulations to her; she is back at work now and is watching this bill closely, I know.

There was a lot of consultation. In the first instance, the Local Government Association (LGA) were not supportive of the bill. I understand now they have reached a position where they are not opposed to the bill. I guess in that regard there have been enough amendments to satisfy their concerns, although I know for a fact that there are some regional councils and local councils, probably suburban as well, which still have some lingering doubts about the effectiveness of this bill and what it might mean to their council operations. Certainly of major concern is the apparent cost shifting from state government to local government. No doubt the minister will be able to address that with her closing remarks.

With regard to vehicle owners, the bill applies the responsibility of the offence on the owner of the vehicle where an offence has been committed in association with, or from, that vehicle. Currently, it is not sufficient to identify the licence plate details and a description of the vehicle to prove a vehicle-related littering or illegal dumping offence.

This, sadly, has become more and more common, and particularly in the country areas, the regional and rural areas throughout the state. Because of, in some cases, prohibitively high fees to access a public dumping facility or a public resource centre, people take it upon themselves to head out into the scrub with a ute-load or a trailer-load of their household rubbish and simply dump it along the roadside, or deeper into the scrub. This becomes an offence under this law and, of course, proving liability has always been difficult. This legislation allows that to be better proven.

If the owner was not responsible for that offence, a statutory declaration would need to be completed, following the same process for traffic offences where the owner was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence. So this provision is critical in establishing enforceable public litter reporting. The move will bring South Australia in line with other states across Australia. It gives the opportunity for the general public to report offences. If they see illegal littering or dumping occurring, they have the opportunity to report that.

Whilst it is possible to report littering in South Australia to the police, there is currently no public litter reporting program in place. This is, in part, because it is difficult to determine the offender under current laws. This legislation will improve that. The new bill, in addition to applying responsibility to the owner of the vehicle, also outlines a citizen notification of littering. This provision stipulates that the contents of the notification may constitute evidence of the offence, which will allow expiations to be issued as a result of public litter reports. Once again, this will bring us in line with other states.

In March 2013, the government released a discussion paper, with the draft bill released for consultation in July 2015. So, for the second half of last year, much consultation was undertaken with the public, with local government and also with the Environment Protection Authority. Forty-nine formal submissions were received and the majority were from councils. About one-third of the councils were supportive of the bill in principle at the time, a further third remained silent regarding support or opposition, with the remaining one-third opposed to the bill in its entirety. Obviously, since a change has been made to the proposed bill, more councils are supportive and, as I said, the LGA has taken a position of not opposing it.

The consultation process unravelled a huge list of issues with the original bill in its existing form. Most of the key issues raised were not limited to but included: resourcing impacts on councils, that they saw it simply as a cost-shifting exercise, the inclusion of class A hazardous litter and also that the definition of nuisance needed to be determined. During the consultation process, some councils expressed concern that legislation was merely the state government handballing responsibility to local councils.

Concerns were also raised about the need for support and the cost of accessing required resources and equipment. I made the point earlier in my contribution that local councils are the shopfront and the first port of call. Wherever people are looking to make a complaint about littering or nuisance, it is invariably to the council. This gives them the responsibility and ability to manage those complaints. The EPA currently provides various equipment to local councils to perform tasks within the local nuisance and litter area. These tools and resources will continue to be supplied.

Class A hazardous litter has been a bit of a sticking point. Serious concerns were raised regarding the extensive list of substances which were once classified as class A hazardous materials. Councils expressed a lack of expertise to be able to identify and handle such materials, and the consequences if they did. Many of the substances classified as class A were hard to identify. For example, various liquids, which may include agricultural chemicals or household chemicals, exist in containers that council authorised officers would not even know existed, let alone be able to identify.

All class A substances were removed, except for asbestos. This was a logical conclusion to that concern. The reason asbestos was not removed from the bill was that asbestos dumping, of course, is a serious issue within our community, with offences occurring too frequently across the state. It was felt that this must be included as a class A substance to enable greater community fight against this offence.

Councils are already tasked to clean up asbestos when dumping occurs. Of course, there were probably five decades worth of construction throughout the state where asbestos was commonly used in housing and building construction, so invariably asbestos will still be discovered from time to time when renovations are being undertaken or demolition occurs. The bill does provide the opportunity to extend this list at a later date above and beyond asbestos as a class A substance.

There were also issues and concerns raised regarding the potential breadth of nuisances covered by the proposed legislation and how these would be assessed. I note the bill now includes a schedule 1, which identifies what actions do not constitute a local nuisance under the proposed legislation. Compliance standards will be developed to assist authorised officers in determining nuisances of various types. A few of the other issues that were raised included but were not limited to:

exemptions;

regional access to a magistrate for warrants;

cooperation between councils, through our local government associations, which exist even in regional areas;

annual reporting information;

regulation of other administering bodies;

powers of authorised officers; and

limited area of authorised officers appointed to councils.

Generally, most of the concerns seem to have been rectified within the bill, or at least there will be further clarification done through the regulations. I understand that regulations will be developed in liaison with the LGA and councils. Often, the devil is in the detail, but those regulations will be developed at least in consultation with the enforcing body.

I might just raise a couple of questions that we have for the minister, and I am hoping that the minister may be able to address these in her closing remarks rather than our going to committee on this particular bill. We do support the bill, and I understand it has been at least 10 years, or probably 15 years, in the making. Certainly, the briefing we received from the government agency was complete and concise. They were able to answer all our questions and they highlighted the amount of work that has been done in this area over the last 10 or more years.

I guess my queries to the minister really are about the budgetary impact for the state government and for councils, and what that is likely to be for councils and the EPA, which has government oversight. I am wondering too, in all of this, particularly with the increased stick that is being wielded over illegal dumping, what the predicted outcome on litter rates might be as a result of this legislation, and whether the government has done any modelling on whether we are likely to see a reduced incidence of dumping.

Given that we are the last state, I understand, to move to this type of legislation, what has been the experience with this sort of legislative framework in other states? I know that we have a couple of other speakers who probably want to speak from a local perspective, so with those remarks I indicate that we support the bill and look forward to its passage.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (12:32): I rise to indicate my support for the bill and to make some remarks. I take the control of litter extremely seriously in my electorate and have done so for some time. I take great pleasure in enjoying time with my local Lions Club (Aberfoyle and Districts) on Road Watch, where we keep our roadways clear of items of rubbish on a regular basis.

I think the forward impact of rubbish such as plastic into our creeks and waterways, and the disruption it has on our ecosystem, is something that we need to take very seriously indeed. This very important bill will establish some much needed clarity and consistency regarding the responsibility for dealing with littering and local nuisance, as well as highlighting the importance of thorough consultation and cooperation.

Along with other members in this place, I receive complaints from constituents regarding a range of things like noise, illegal dumping, animals, smoke, and also unsightly premises. These are often known as neighbourhood junkyards, where hoarding or collecting large numbers of items in residents' yards happens. These items can include things such as cars and furniture, piles of recycling and other rubbish, just to name a few items. This causes significant anxiety to locals and neighbours.

South Australia is the only state in Australia where local government is not legislated to some extent in relation to their responsibility in this area. Because of the frequency of the occurrence, it is essential that clear guidelines exist for dealing with such complaints so that all residents in South Australia are privy to the same type and level of response.

There are non-mandatory provisions in the Environment Protection Act 1993 for councils to manage nuisance, but they really are applied inconsistently across our state, and that generates quite a degree of confusion. Local councils by nature have very strong local knowledge and connections, and therefore have a vital role to play in the management of environmental nuisance issues, which this bill is designed to enhance. It is vital that local and state governments work effectively together to ensure that all parties understand the division of responsibility. This bill sees the scope of local government made clear in relation to managing nuisance in its community, while more serious offences will continue to be referred to the EPA.

The development of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Bill 2015 has been underway since late 2012, and the extensive consultation that has resulted in a much more robust bill should be commended. The discussion paper, which was released in March 2013, was extensive, and formal consultation on the draft bill commenced in July 2015. We have also seen a ministerial working group consisting of reps from the EPA, the LGA, the Department of Health and Ageing, SA Police, KESAB and the Office for Local Government, which was established to guide the drafting of legislation and provide governance for the project.

There were 49 submissions received during the consultation, and I am confident that, because of the extent of this consultation and high level of cooperation and assistance that has resulted, the transition to the new arrangements should be smooth and beneficial. While the bill consolidates several pieces of legislation to provide modern and more effective laws over time, which are expected to lead to cost savings for the provision of community services, some of the other areas in the bill interest me particularly, such as—alluded to previously by the member for Flinders—the Dob in a Litterer program, which includes an app. This is a great way to engage with modern society.

The Dob in a Litterer app within the bill provides the statutory basis for using the registration of a vehicle to hold the owner responsible for acts of littering. This app has been developed by Green Industries South Australia, and it will see members of the public able to report littering offences, using car registration, to the EPA. As the app and supporting website have already been developed, it is anticipated that the community will be able to start reporting offences as soon as the act comes into operation, which we hope will be in the second half of this year.

I am advised that, initially, reports and issuing of fines will be processed manually until there is an understanding of the sheer volume of reports. I hope that this will not be too extensive and I hope that the public, through more publicity, will be able to curtail some of these practices. Potential options for administering the program could include the expansion of the role of the EPA call centre. There will also be a need to have a discussion on how revenue from the program will be administered and how that program will be promoted. These issues will also be addressed in the implementation plan, which is forthcoming.

I am also particularly interested in the section relating to unsightly premises. The bill includes improved controls for unsightly premises, as I alluded to before, known as neighbourhood junkyards. We are no doubt familiar with them as a form of local nuisance. Councils have raised concerns with the state government in recent years that current powers in this area that are within the Local Government Act are not always effective and that they would welcome reform. The bill will provide that reform and give greater authority for councils to order the rectification of unsightly conditions and insanitary conditions on premises and improved tools for the enforcement of notices.

Where a nuisance abatement notice has been issued requiring the clean-up of an unsightly premises and it is not complied with, the council may then carry out that work and recover the costs for doing so. There are safeguards in the application of the laws, so where a person is issued with a notice, they may appeal to the Environment, Resources and Development Court within 14 days of service. This issue is one of the more frequent things that is reported to me within the electorate office, so I actually welcome this change.

All of these things will help with our environment and, importantly, help with our ecosystem. When dealing with such matters that cross jurisdictions, it is imperative that we are clear and transparent and there is a demarcation of responsibilities. This bill does just that and brings South Australia in line with other states across the country. Importantly, from my fundamental values, just as with other services that we provide, like education and health, the bill ensures that South Australians, regardless of where you live and who you are, can rely on a consistent service and assistance when it comes to issues such as local nuisance. I strongly commend the bill to members.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:39): I rise to support this bill as a very necessary piece of legislation. All of us in this place would receive complaints from constituents about piles of rubbish and old cars left around the place that really do detract from the amenity of our communities. The need to assist local government in having the power to compel people to tidy up their premises, to remove rubbish, to remove old cars, is something this legislation will be able to do, and we look forward to its coming in. I will just read a letter from the Environmental Health Officer at the City of Holdfast Bay, Don McInnes, to a constituent of mine, in which he states:

In response to your request for the City of Holdfast Bay to act against the owner of the land on which materials stored that is causing you offence [he gives the address], I inspected the site on 9 March, 2016.

The enabling power for me to issue an Order against the owner of the subject land is set out in Section 254 of the Local Government Act…

The observations I made on 9 March led me to conclude that the invocation of the Act to issue an Order to ameliorate the unsightly condition is unnecessary, because the unsightly condition does not detract significantly from the amenity of the locality in which your home is located.

Notwithstanding the preceding, I have, without suggestion of compulsion or issue of an Order, required the owner of [this property] to remove the material. Furthermore, I put to the owner that the installation of a fence and/or gate would ameliorate the situation.

I have seen photographs of this particular mess, and I do disagree with Don (I get on very well with Don): this is not something I would like to have next to my place. The installation of a fence or a gate would certainly help. Don goes on to say:

There is a prospect that the declaration by Parliament of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Bill 2015, will provide an instrument that may be appropriate to address the matters of concern to you. I will re-visit the issue on the eventual declaration of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2015.

This piece of legislation is needed, is necessary, and, while beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, these piles of rubbish are a health hazard, certainly a physical hazard, a trip hazard and a fire hazard. They are an unnecessary blight on our communities in 99 per cent of cases, so anything we can do to make sure that our communities can be enjoyed by everybody and not allowed to be degraded and littered by a few is something we should do. With that, I support the bill.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:42): I, too, rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Bill and to indicate support for it. It is a bill in the state government's response to continued calls to better deal with local nuisance and litter issues. This has been going on for many, many decades—people illegally dumping, the drop off of the unwanted.

We have seen some measures in place, particularly in the Riverland in the electorate of Chaffey, where councils have been proactive. They have had the hard waste pick-up collections and they have decided that they would put more investment into bins to better highlight the need for people to be tidy and look after the environment. My electorate is surrounded by parks and it has the great River Murray running through it, and they are wonderful environmental assets that need to be protected, particularly from waste and dumped large articles—cars, furniture, household equipment and the like—that really impact on the beauty of the environment.

I highlight that one of the major areas in the bill includes the crackdown on illegal dumping, which is of huge concern. It seems that we are addressing it, but people continue to dump illegally. In December 2015, it was highlighted. The Riverland district ranger, Phil Strachan, who was known to many in the Riverland as the spokesperson up there, took 10 department workers to clear more than two tonnes of rubbish from the Katarapko Creek area. They found the details of at least four individuals by inspecting those items that had been dumped and then went on to prosecute.

One of the ways they did that prosecution was a little bit tongue in cheek. They found the details. Phil knew that person but he did not go to that person to report him—he actually went to his mother and whispered in his mother's ear that, if this was to continue, more action would be taken. Funnily enough, this person's mother dealt with the issue, and he has since come forward, cleaned up some of the rubbish and also made an apology. So there are more ways to skin a cat.

Obviously, household rubbish and, as I said, furniture have been a major issue for illegal dumping. We have also dealt with campsites over long weekends, particularly the Easter period. That has always been a real concern, particularly along the river. A lot of that rubbish blows into the river, blows into the parks, and some of the native fauna are scarred, because a lot of it is not biodegradable; it does not break down and sits there for months, even in some cases for years, particularly cans and bottles. I think that people need to be more aware.

The council is being proactive, as is the department. I just would like to touch on an issue with the department, and that is that the Treasurer seems to have this view that it is much easier to take away money from DEWNR or the department than it is to give them money. Long have I heard that the department is having resources taken away from it. Its budget is being reduced, and dealing with this rubbish reduction is having an impact on that department. There is a lack of staff numbers dealing with rubbish removal, a lack of staff numbers dealing with monitoring and also doing a collection when it comes to those people who are using the campsites along the river.

Again, I commend the Department of Environment for the work that it is doing in prosecuting and in the clean-up. In many cases, volunteers work with the department to do those clean-ups. Also, we have had a number of issues with rubbish from fast-food outlets, and that is having a significant impact on car parks, particularly in areas surrounding those fast-food outlets. That is again adding to the pressure. I would like to commend some of the KESAB initiatives, particularly the service clubs that walk the highways, the parks and the river. You often see a team of them on the side of the Sturt Highway, cleaning up.

They do a damn fine job of looking after their communities and volunteering their time to picking up and making sure that they keep our highways and parks clean of litter. We have had some great examples in some of our local towns. Waikerie and Loxton are two notable towns that have been given Tidy Towns awards over time. Berri's Town Beautification Committee has organised to make sure that the people of Berri have great pride in their town, as have Renmark and Paringa. It is great to see them.

My electorate goes to the Victorian boundary, and one thing that is very noticeable in South Australia is the lack of cans, bottles and rubbish on the side of the road, on the side of the federal highways. When you get yourself into Victoria and New South Wales, all of a sudden there is a sea of glass, cans and litter. It does show that the container deposit is working. While people have that container deposit mentality, they also are more reluctant to throw the rubbish out of a moving vehicle.

In closing, I want to touch on hazardous litter. Something that has become very obvious in my electorate in the Riverland and the Mallee are green posts, broken vineyard posts that need to be dealt with. The minister turns a blind eye to the green posts. A program needs to be put in place to deal with the CCA green posts, chemicals and asbestos pipe. These are issues that are of real concern. DrumMUSTER is a working program and Chem Drop is a working program. More needs to be done, but I do commend this bill and I welcome more contributions from people on this side.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:49): I rise to speak on the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Bill 2016 and indicate that some concerns have been raised with me about this bill. I will refer to one matter quickly and that is the announcement by the federal government that it is going to fund the research and approval process for the disposal of carp. I welcome that. I thought this was a great initiative. Apparently, it has been operating in a number of other countries.

When I have been a guest of the member for Chaffey in the Riverland—excellent trips they are—the people in charge of the protection of the Murray from, in particular, native pests such as carp have explained what projects have been used and the almost insurmountable job to actually get rid of these things to give a chance for native fish species to continue to flourish or at least survive in this environment of carp.

One of the problems has been the EPA's apparent approach to the burying of dead carp. Apparently, when you catch them, you still cannot throw them back—this is two or three in someone's bucket when they go home after fishing. They have all of these magnificent traps in the locks along the river which are not being used because of the problem of not being able to empty them out, put them into a hole, cover them with dirt and let them go to decomposition as a carbon-based item.

How we have not dealt with that in the past is just beyond me, given that, apparently in Victoria, because it is across the border where they also have the River Murray snaking through their region, they have been able to deal with this. We have been dropping the ball there. We have had some magnificent infrastructure go in up in the Riverland to add extra regulators. Now is the time to do it. It is a great initiative of the federal government. I would just hope that the state government is active in making sure that the two-year approval process occurs and, in the meantime, we are able to dispose of carp in a sensible, practical manner without harm to the soil environment.

Getting back to the bill, I cannot help but note that, although this bill had a gestation period of recommendation of 10 years after a community survey was done, which apparently concluded that the overwhelming majority decided that councils would be best placed to manage nuisance matters, we are, all these years later, here. It has also been four years since the Statutory Authorities Review Committee told us, in considering a review of the EPA, that the EPA needed to have its jurisdiction tightened and, obviously, there was a recommendation for councils to take up this area of responsibility. Thirdly, it has now taken three years since the March 2013 discussion paper to develop how this was to be managed to come in.

Coinciding with the issue of the bill, in about June last year, the government decided that it was going to introduce a whole new planning law regime. That has been through the parliament. What is left of it, in its mashed up, amended form, has now been proclaimed. We note that the government—over the next five years, apparently, not 18 months—are going to draft all of the codes of behaviour, conduct, rules and regulations to affect it.

Is it not interesting that this coincides with a time when the government says, 'Councils are hopeless'? 'They are inconsistent. We need to take back planning laws and all of the money that goes with it—all of the income that is earned on applications for the consideration of approval for planning. They are inadequate and too incompetent to do that. We cannot trust them to do it.' The Attorney-General, as the Minister for Planning, says, 'I have to take that back. I need to take responsibility because they are hopeless.'

Yet, at the very same time, they are saying, 'We will give you this. We will give you the responsibility of fining people or giving a civil remedy for them dumping rubbish on the side of the road, and you can deal with all of the noise disputes. You can deal with the police when people call them because they have noisy neighbours or there are bands too loud or music too loud in neighbouring areas.'

These are penetrating and very difficult issues. They are offensive to the victims, obviously, whether they are a victim of having litter dumped in front of their house or property, or have their sleep disturbed all night. I do not discount how difficult it is for people but, for so long, and the government has been aware of it for 10 years, it has been a problem and nobody has done anything about it.

Each time it has been raised in the general arena, people have said that the council have dealt with that. Yes, the council have dealt with it so far by saying, 'I am sorry, madam, you need to go to the EPA,' or 'You need to deal with it by reporting it to the local police,' and then, of course, that does not happen. In my area, we do not even have a police station; unfortunately, the one in Norwood is about to have its time even more restricted. We know from annual reports on police that those things are just not followed up. They are minor in the scheme of the myriad of responsibilities they have, but they do not get resolved.

Dumping rubbish has become more and more prolific mainly, I think, because we make it so hard for people to effectively dispose of their rubbish because of the cost of doing so, facing fines for dumping all sorts of things. In recent years, I have read stories about dead horses being dumped, as well as furniture, mattresses and other offensive waste, which is so costly now to get rid of, and of chemical waste being disposed of and left on neighbouring industrial sites. Councils do not want to take them, but people have to dispose of them. So, what do they do? They drive up past Belair National Park and they dump it out on the side of the road.

The government's response to this is to say, 'Well, we'll give these hopeless, useless councils a new job, and this is the new job that they are going to do, and we will give them the right to be able to charge for it.' The income for the cost to manage these issues is currently, I suggest, not being addressed by appropriate prosecution of offenders, as in dumping rubbish or when loud music continues to blare. There is not really a resolution; there are attempts by the police when they have time to intervene, but it is clearly not adequate.

I find it very curious that we are being asked to support a change of regime, where the government says, 'We're finished with this. This is too messy and detailed and minor for us to deal with. We'll give it back to those lovely councils to deal with it. We're not going to give them any money to do it, but we'll give them the right to charge for it.' That in my view is a very unsatisfactory situation.

As a local member, I have of course considered these matters with my local areas of responsibility. I have the Norwood council, I have part of the Burnside council and part of the Adelaide Hills Council; some of them have left it up to the LGA to deal with the issue. The Burnside council became very public about their concern about the transfer of responsibility without adequate support. Indeed, I had a letter from the Burnside council's chief executive when this matter was promulgated originally as the proposed draft bill. The concerns raised included the definition of local nuisance being too broad and that is going to be a challenge for whoever in SACAT, or other administrative determinations, to deal with it.

There are implementation issues, the transfer of responsibility from state government to local government without any funding to go with it and, of course, the never-ending cost that will be needed for training (again, there is no money to do any of this) and expenditure on their staff to sufficiently train them to deal with what is often a mediation role in determining neighbourhood disputes. In addition, they are concerned about the significant amount of potential legislation that will be affected by this.

The call for them was not to have this responsibility dumped on them. I undertook for the council to at least raise this matter in the parliament. Whilst we are prepared to support this bill, it is not without attention to the fact that the government is doing this in a way to rid themselves of the pesky responsibility of dealing with local constituents. At the same time, they made a quantum grab, of course, and were scathing of councils in respect of their responsibility on low-level planning matters. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.