Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Illegal Dumping on Construction Sites) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 July 2017.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (23:44): I rise to indicate that the government will not be supporting the Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Illegal Dumping on Construction Sites) Amendment Bill 2017, which seeks to double penalties for illegal dumping activities undertaken on construction sites as opposed to dumping anywhere else.

The advice that the government has from the independent regulator that is charged with tackling illegal dumping, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), is that construction sites do not pose a particular problem, nor has the industry raised this as an issue with the EPA. A more common issue reported to the EPA is the dumping of construction waste on roads and public land which this proposed amendment may exacerbate.

It is the assumption of the proponent of the bill that the new Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016, which only commenced operation on 1 February 2017, is insufficient to address illegal dumping on construction sites. There is no evidence to support this. The environmental benefit of the proposed amendments, noting that such material would be confined by fencing around the site and cleaned up by the owner or builder, will be negligible.

However, there would be negative environmental and community impact if material that would otherwise be dumped on a construction site, and cleaned up from that site, is dumped elsewhere such as on public roads, public land or other private property. Clean up may be more costly or more difficult and there may be a heightened risk to the public and the environment of exposure to harmful waste. Neither outcome, of course, is desirable, and the new Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016 was introduced to reduce the incidence of illegal dumping in all these scenarios.

The new act has increased the expiation for the illegal dumping from $315 to $1,000; in other words, the expiation fee has tripled for this offending. This increase will deter offending and any further increase should be considered in the context of whether this large increase is determined through evidence and in good time to be insufficient. The new act also introduces vehicle owner responsibility so that dumping associated with a vehicle is much more straightforward to prosecute. This reform also enhances the effectiveness of surveillance in areas of repeat offending whereby vehicles can be used to readily identify alleged offenders.

I have been told that the EPA has previously made contact with relevant stakeholders regarding the issue that the bill seeks to address—illegal dumping on construction sites. However, no interest was shown by stakeholders in relation to intervention by a regulator. Additionally, illegal dumping on private property, including construction sites, will be discouraged by the installation of appropriate fencing and it is the responsibility of the developer that a property cannot be accessed easily.

The Environment Protection (Waste Reform) Bill passed recently by this place and the other place came into force on 28 November 2017. The bill provided the EPA with a better suite of powers to track and prosecute those in our community who illegally dump. The bill before the house also requires further thought. As I said earlier, it proposes stricter fines for constructions sites but why should these sites be treated any differently to others?

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: I'll answer that.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Okay, that is excellent. Additionally, the changes proposed by the bill concerning the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs might be redundant. My understanding is that the matters canvassed can already be raised or referred to the commissioner.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (23:50): I will be brief. This bill addresses the matter of increasing levels of illegal dumping, which is taking place on construction sites, by increasing fines and some of the disciplinary sanctions. There is a new offence for disposing of litter on a construction site, with a higher expiation fee, including on-the-spot fines between $420 to $2,000. In his second reading contribution, the mover of this bill stated that local councils have identified that some 'small operators are the most likely source of illegally dumped construction and demolition waste'.

The mover also identified that a number of stakeholders, including the Housing Industry Association and Consumer and Business Services, have identified illegal dumping as a particular problem which is costly for the industry. We have determined that, on balance, we will support this piece of legislation which will address those matters, and look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (23:52): This is a curious bill, and I will say at the outset that the Greens are not able to support it. Certainly the issue of illegal dumping is one that has vexed state and local government authorities for a long time, and I have no doubt that the honourable member is right in saying that construction sites are prime locations for illegal dumping. The position that we have come to is that, if there are to be differential penalties for the location of illegal dumping, we are not convinced that the main game is construction sites.

If you want to have higher penalties, why not include people who illegally dump waste in sensitive wetlands, or in rivers and streams, or in national parks. There are of a whole range of other locations where the dumping of rubbish might actually cause more harm than the dumping of waste on a construction site. It is interesting to ask whether we should have differential penalties. The honourable member has a number of examples of where this has been a problem, and I do not doubt for one minute that they are live examples.

When it comes to actually changing the law and having special penalties for different types of dumping, we are not convinced that this is the main problem, but in the future we would be interested in looking at the idea of higher penalties for dumping that causes real harm to the environment, such as dumping in wetlands, creeks and natural areas. We will see what the will of the house is in terms of whether this progresses beyond the second reading tonight, but whilst the Greens acknowledge what the honourable member is trying to achieve, we are not able to support the bill in its current form.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (23:54): I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I like the Hon. Mr Ngo, but I find there is a lot of hypocrisy there on behalf of his government. The fact is they have to offset the bottom line balance sheet of the budget with a huge zero waste fund that they are not spending, just like the Victims of Crime. Because of their actions, history will show that they have caused more and more illegal dumping.

I am embarrassed, frustrated and annoyed that on the main Victor Harbor road, which is a tourist destination road, we see more and more rubbish being dumped there. The reason people are dumping that rubbish is because this government has had bad policy when it comes to disposal of waste, to a large extent. I want to be fair. I am always very fair to minister Hunter. There are some things he has done that are good, but there are some things he has done that are very, very bad. That is why we have this illegal dumping.

I thank my colleague the Hon. Mark Parnell for what he had to say. We do not want to see asbestos dumped out here to the north in waterways and open spaces either. I thank my colleagues from the opposition for indicating that they do support the intent of the bill and should they get into government on 17 or 18 March then that will give us an opportunity to progress this.

What I have seen here tonight is that the numbers are not quite here to go to a vote, but this is a good step forward. The staff in my office—whom I thank—and I have done a lot of consultation with the building industry and others and they want to see this. This is hurting the businesses that build, members of the Master Builders Association and members of the Housing Industry Association. It is hurting first-home buyers and it is costing, in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars a year to the bigger builders.

Where they used to put one or two mini skips on to a building site, I believe now they put as many as four, maybe even five, just to accommodate illegal dumping. So, they are de facto rubbish collectors and that is costing their businesses, their clients and customers who are building these homes, a lot of money. What it says to Australian Conservatives is that there is a problem. That has been recognised by both the Liberal opposition, the Greens and, clearly, Australian Conservatives.

When we get back after the election we will be looking at either further pursuing this or looking at a select committee that can specifically look at every issue to do with waste and how we can better manage this in South Australia. It has clearly opened a door and acknowledged that there are a lot of people in this parliament, in the Legislative Council, who do agree with Australian Conservatives that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. At least we now have a proper debate on it, we have some recognition and as we go forward into the next term of parliament we will have an opportunity to fix this matter once and for all. With that, I thank my colleagues for their contribution and I look forward to improving this, given our successful re-election in 2018.

Second reading negatived.