GARBAGE COLLECTION

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (14:55): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations a question about garbage collection.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Constituents have contacted me regarding the unfairness of the actions of country local government authorities, including Central Yorke Peninsula and Clare and Gilbert Plains. Many constituents in these council areas are charged a full service rate for garbage collection when they are a significant distance from the collection point, having to move their bins several hundred metres and, in some cases, many kilometres to the front of their property for collection.

They are happy to pay a service rate but not the charge for service as they really do not require garbage collection. However, the councils continue to charge them the full rate. Councils are able to do this due to the ambiguity of section 146 of the Local Government Act which provides that a council may impose rates and charges for services on land within its area, without any mention of the practicality of providing the services. My questions are:

1. Is the minister considering amendments to the Local Government Act that will clarify the intent of the powers of section 146?

2. Will the minister consider amendments that would direct councils to offer a reduced rate in view of the practicality of providing garbage collection services in regional areas?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (14:57): I thank the member for his important question. Indeed, it was a policy position that was put by the Yorke Peninsula district council that created an enormous response from local ratepayers.

Just to go back a little, with the assistance of a $150,000 grant from Zero Waste, the District Council of Yorke last year embarked on a major initiative to close landfills and reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, which is a commendable thing. As part of that process, the council undertook public consultation in the first half of 2008 on its consultation report on waste management services charges, a draft waste and recycling policy and also a draft annual business plan.

Nevertheless, after the service was introduced in October 2008 and the service charge started appearing on rates notices, the council was subjected to a large number of complaints which I think most members have seen. In the words of the council's letter to me, 'The response via the volume of telephone calls received by council staff was far greater than anticipated.' Somewhat of an understatement!

A petition of 741 signatures was also received in the other place, and the petition expressed the view that there had been insufficient public consultation regarding the community's needs, inadequate thought put into the facilitation of transporting bins to and from designated way points or route sites, and that it overlooked occupational health and safety issues, transportation costs, and issues of safety and potential liability for injury with bins placed along roads that have speeds of 100 or 110 km/h.

Not all land in the council's area is on the bin collection route. Some land, mainly on sealed roads, has the benefit of waste pick-up from its road frontage. Other land, mostly on unsealed roads, does not have the benefit of waste pick-up from its road frontage. However, residents are being encouraged to take their waste to pick-up locations on the nearest bin collection route. The council has advised me that no land should be more than 10 kilometres from the nearest waste pick-up location. However, the council's service charge applies to all land in the council district irrespective of whether or not pick-up is offered from the land's road frontage.

The council's legal adviser has told the council that it does have the power, under section 155 of the Local Government Act, to impose a service charge, even against land to which the service is not directly provided. I sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on that matter and the Crown agrees with the council's interpretation of section 155(2); however, I do not consider that such an interpretation would have been envisaged when section 155 was enacted, and it seems to be outside what I would call the general spirit of the intent of that section. In plain English, it is difficult to understand how a service charge can justifiably be applied to land that cannot receive the service.

I believe there is a policy distinction between land to which a service is available but not utilised and land to which a service is not provided and to which it is not possible to provide that particular service. The owners of the first category of land sometimes complain that they ought not to be charged because they do not use the service; nevertheless, it is a matter for each individual council to determine—obviously, subject to consultation with the community—how the amount necessary to operate the prescribed service should be collected from those who choose to use it. However, to my knowledge no council has, until now, ever sought to impose a service charge against land for which the service is unobtainable.

The District Council of Yorke Peninsula has described to me the process of planning and consultation that preceded the introduction of both its new waste and recycling service and its new service charge. The service has been well planned and, insofar as the service charge relates to the land that can receive that service, the council's consultation process fulfilled its obligations under the act. The acting ombudsman has reviewed the matter in the context of one particular complaint, and has informally advised my department that, in his view, the council's consultation process and its method of charging complied with the Local Government Act 1999. Therefore, he did not intend to make any adverse findings about the council's decision.

Nevertheless, the controversial aspect of imposing a service charge even on land that cannot receive that service was not highlighted in the council's consultation. In this respect at least, I believe the council's consultation could have been much better. In February 2009 the council undertook a review of its service and, on 10 March 2009, agreed to make some immediate changes to improve options for people who were not on the bin collection route. However, this review did not examine the way that the funding for the service was obtained from the council's community.

In view of the consistent legal advice, the petition brought before parliament by the member for Goyder, the Ombudsman's view, and the fact that under current legislation no intervention is warranted, I suggest that only legislative reform can properly deal with this matter. In my view, the charging regime for this particular service ought to be considered as contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of section 155, and I have written to the mayor encouraging the council to revisit this matter in the context of preparing its 2009 annual business plan. This would give the council the opportunity to take the initiative and deal appropriately with the matter before any legislative change could be brought into operation.

I am also examining an appropriate legislative solution to ensure in future that annual service charges cannot be imposed upon land to which the prescribed service is not available and which cannot be accessed by that service. There are also other issues in terms of access to and enjoyment of amenities that are covered by the bin system, such as townships that may have that system in place. So, although the people concerned may not have a frontage bin collection, they can nevertheless drive into town and enjoy the recycling amenities in the township. There are issues around that, and I am looking to see whether those sorts of things can be incorporated as well. I believe I have requested a meeting with the mayor and the Chief Executive. I am not too sure whether that has yet been actioned, but I have certainly requested my office to arrange for a meeting to be set up in the foreseeable future to progress this matter.