HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LITTER) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 October 2008. Page 513.)

Ms BREUER (Giles) (11:05): I want to speak briefly on this issue because it is of concern to us. Litter certainly concerns both local and state government; therefore, the state government is developing an integrated response to littering that will involve both local governments and state government agencies. We know that in the past local government has been very good on this issue, and it has been interesting to look at the Tidy Town Competition over the years and see what happens in communities and to go into those communities and see how clean and wonderful they are.

This is different from the old days, and I remember that my mother had the old attitude to litter. We would be driving along in the car, and she would open the car window and throw something out. The kids would say to her, 'Mum, you can't do that.' She would say, 'Yes, you can. There's no-one behind us.' That was very often the attitude for many years. I think that she was like that until the day she died and she would consistently do that. A lot of people have that attitude. It is interesting when you go overseas and see the amount of litter in various places. You can work out the government's attitude to litter and that of the council, shire, or whatever, just by looking around the place.

The Minister for State/Local Government Relations will be writing to the LGA asking for views, not just on appropriate penalty regimes for littering and associated practices, but also to raise problems associated with cigarette butts, which are becoming a major problem, and litter in the vicinity of fast food outlets. If you go to a car park where there is a fast food outlet such as McDonald's, Hungry Jack's or Kentucky, there is always litter. People seem to think that they can just drop it anywhere. A lot of the time I think that could be alleviated with more rubbish bins, but they are often not around. However, it is a problem in fast food outlets.

The honourable member opposite suggested that a scheme in Victoria, under which members of the public dob in litterers, has been a great success. Maybe it has, but what he is doing there is equating success solely with an increase in infringement notices rather than, perhaps, any reduction in litter; so, we would want to see that further qualified. Are we talking about more people getting fined, or are we really getting some sort of reduction in litter?

There is no need for dob in provisions that are unique to litter, because any member of the public can already report the commission of any offence to the South Australian police or any other enforcement body. This is certainly something that I have been tempted to do at times when I have seen people just dropping stuff and really not taking any notice.

One of the big problems that is occurring, particularly in country areas, is people dumping their rubbish out in bushland and ruining that bushland. I know that there are areas in Whyalla that people seem to see as an alternative rubbish dump. That can be reported by anyone. Deciding whether or not to issue an expiation notice for any offence is always a matter of discretion for police and councils. Some councils are certainly very hard on littering and do issue those notices. It is often not hard to find out who has actually dumped the litter.

The provisions proposed by the member opposite would certainly do nothing on their own to alter the position. I am opposing this measure. Litter is certainly a problem of our age, but I do not think that this would alleviate anything.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:10): I thank the member for Giles for her comments.

Second reading negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT