HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-05-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (16:04): I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill, as I hope it will have a positive impact on my community. The location of my office, right next to Westfield Marion, does mean that I can see out of my office window and there are invariably abandoned trolleys nearby. Unfortunately, if they have been there a long time, they turn into rubbish bins, which nobody wants to touch. Recently, I have been doorknocking in Oaklands Park and the amount of trolleys dumped along the train line is extraordinary. In fact, I was speaking to one woman who counted 42 abandoned trolleys on her walk back to her house one day.

This bill will introduce sensible measures to ensure timely collection and clear identification of trolleys. The changes will benefit the retailer, customer and our general community. The retailer should likely lose fewer trolleys, the customer hopefully have cleaner trolleys and the general community will have an environment free of plastic or metal pollution. The dumping of shopping trolleys is a considerable issue for a number of councils and an issue not unique to South Australia. However, it is timely that we update our laws to remove trolleys from our streets, parks and unfortunately from our waterways.

I note, too, that this bill will apply not only to major supermarkets but to any retail premises that provide them to customers as part of their business. You will often see trolleys provided by hardware stores, liquor stores, office suppliers, pet suppliers and even discount stores. As the minister outlined in her second reading explanation previously, the City of Marion reported collecting more than 230 shopping trolleys around the Westfield Marion and Castle Plaza shopping centres in just four days—a considerable issue to be managed.

This bill strikes a balance between the needs of the retailer and the needs of the community by not placing unreasonable expectations or penalties on retailers, particularly for small business, while also seeing trolleys removed from the environment in a timely manner, not the significant delay that we often see in some areas.

It can sometimes be hard to identify who is the responsible owner of the trolley, therefore this bill will require a business that provides shopping trolleys to ensure that they are marked or have securely attached to them the trading name of the business, a contact telephone number, email address or QR code that can be used for the reporting of trolleys left in a place outside the business premises.

This provision will require minimal change by retailers, as many do have the trading name on the trolleys and may just need to add contact details so the trolley can be returned if it is abandoned. For existing stocks of trolleys, a weatherproof sticker containing the required information will be sufficient, and for new stock, the information can be incorporated into the branding on the trolley or through the application of such weatherproof stickers.

This bill requires trolleys that are causing a hazard to be collected immediately and the collection of abandoned trolleys that are not causing a safety hazard within three days, this being three business days in recognition of some traders not working seven days a week. For one-site retailers and limited site retailers, such as office suppliers or large liquor retailers, it is easy to identify the source of the trolley. However, for supermarkets and other multisite retailers, the origin of the trolley can be unclear, so the nearest store will be responsible for the removal of the trolley.

Recently, a resident contacted my office about plastic debris from a factory blowing onto a footpath and into the adjacent waterway. While I have been out park running on a Saturday morning along the Sturt River, I have, unfortunately, seen trolleys at the bottom of the river. This bill will hopefully reduce this.

The bill also addresses particular areas of local nuisance, being the installation of an air conditioning unit or an external light. Whilst most properties will have these items installed, they should not affect neighbouring properties. You do not need the hum of an air conditioning unit or the blinding light from a neighbour's security light keeping you awake at night. The sound of an air conditioning unit can provide great stress on people and also, if it is interrupting your sleep, have a great impact on the productiveness of the next day for you.

The bill places the responsibility now on installers of air conditioners and external lights to give due consideration as to the placement of this equipment so that it does not cause local nuisance. Prevention is indeed better than cure. Additionally, this bill inserts a new section 30A, which will allow councils to register a nuisance abatement notice to land. These notices apply controls regarding local nuisance that are caused by fixed equipment such as noisy air conditioners, pool pumps or external lights and will ensure they are applied to new owners of property given the source of the nuisance transcends ownership. This is currently not possible.

I am pleased to see the introduction of a general duty to prevent or minimise litter generated from a business. This duty may be reasonably met through the provision of adequate bins for customers, reduced packaging, or signage advising customers to dispose of their waste properly where litter from customers or product is concerned. We are pleased to hear this. With more business development occurring in the electorate and particularly as we see more small service stations and small fast food retailers coming into our community, we find them at the end of residential streets, and the impact of litter on those can be very detrimental.

Additionally, currently the installation of stormwater management systems such as gross pollutant traps and oil plate separators is often a requirement of development approvals; however, there is no obligation upon businesses to maintain them. That changes under this bill, again protecting our waterways and oceans.

A definition of 'property' will be added in this bill to ensure that bill posting or flyering provisions can be accessed by the owners of car parks where flyers are being posted on vehicles within the car park without the permission of the owner of the car park. Currently the owner of a car park, where much of the litter can end up, has no recourse to stop the practice from occurring.

Councils will, additionally, gain an avenue through this bill to recover costs in situations where they clean up litter because it is a hazard to the community before the identity of the alleged offender is known and, at a later date, the alleged offender is identified. The current act only allows cost recovery where councils clean up following noncompliance with a litter abatement notice, which provides unnecessary delay if a hazard exists.

Lastly, this bill delivers more efficient processes for assessment and issuing of exemptions and differing expiation amounts for body corporates and natural persons to achieve greater deterrence for businesses that may otherwise absorb expiation fees into the cost of doing business. This bill will put measures in place to improve our environment and public realm, and I commend it to the house.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (16:12): I was deep in conversation on another matter over here, so this will be certainly an ad-libbed one. I rise to support this amendment legislation. It is good that the consultation process that was gone through leading to these amendments was an extensive one. I believe it occurred over a three-month period, and during that time the Local Government Association was heavily involved, as was the EPA, and there was a thorough thrashing out of many of the issues.

As a local member, you are often confronted with some of the issues that have been raised here. I will get onto trolleys later. It is actually in Brocky's electorate—the member for Stuart's electorate—where trolleys central exists. But we share Port Augusta, and whatever happens in the seat of Stuart in Port Augusta has an impact on the seat of Giles in Port Augusta. These are two areas that work well together, and when we have a problem it is a problem shared, so we do try to work to address it. I will get onto trolleys later.

One of the good things about the amendments is that there has been a clear delineation between the Liquor Licensing Act and the responsibilities that come under that act and what it is that local government needs to do. Under the Liquor Licensing Act it is those issues that are to do with alcohol, patronage and entertainment, and the noise arising quite rightly comes under that particular act, while the other nuisance issues that might be generated by hotels come under this bill, making it clear it is the local council that is essentially responsible.

When we look at the amendment bill, a number of things are covered. There are reforms across numerous aspects of the act, and that is good because it did need a bit of an overhaul. There are more efficient processes for the assessment and issuing of exemptions, increased expiation fees to improve deterrence and the inclusion of an offence to install an air conditioner or light in a place where it causes a local nuisance. I have on occasions had to address some of these issues as a member.

There is a general duty for business owners to prevent or minimise litter resulting from their business, including from stormwater management systems, and I think that is something incredibly important. There are improved cost recovery mechanisms for local government because they should not be out of pocket for some of the things that they have to do. There is improved delineation of the responsibility between councils and the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner for the regulation of different types of nuisance occurring on premises licensed under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, and there are provisions to improve the management and collection of abandoned shopping trolleys.

The approach being taken is to find compromises and not be overly heavy-handed when it comes to the issuing of fines and the more heavy-duty punitive approaches. It is about working through some of the issues to find a better solution. On that issue about air conditioning and lighting, as time goes on and, as it says in the consultation paper, as peak bodies and others are consulted and as the information feeds down, there will be more awareness and sensitivity about where you put an air conditioner, especially a large system, and where you put lighting.

I have some pet issues when it comes to lighting, so I will warn you I am going off on a tangent here. This is not covered by this bill; it is a tangent, and it is about lighting in general in urban areas. It can be a nuisance if not properly designed. A lot of the lighting we now have in urban areas is wasted. It just spills over. It is not appropriately directed. We do have the technology when it comes to streetlights and other ways of doing stuff at the moment to address some of these problems.

One of the impacts of not addressing these problems across urban areas is that kids these days—I know when I was kid when we first came out to Australia, we used to be out there on the lawn because we had no air conditioning, and we used to be able to watch the firmament above us, the Milky Way. It was just amazing. How many people were turned into cosmologists because of that experience I do not know, but it always left you with a sense of amazement.

Back in those days, I know in Whyalla—I am not sure about in other communities—at about 1 o'clock in the morning, all the streetlights would be turned off, so the exposure to the stars and the Milky Way was even greater. When I was on council, I raised this as an issue. Maybe we could go back to those days when people talked about policing, offending and what have you (I did say this was a tangent). In the data I saw, there was very little difference in offending between areas with streetlighting in place and areas with the streetlighting turned off. As I said, that is a tangent, but I think we do need to take into account light pollution and the way it impacts our appreciation of this vast universe that we live in.

This is one of my pet issues: I went around Whyalla a couple of years ago, taking pictures of trolleys in all sorts of locations. I had a chat to the supermarkets and the council about the issue at the time. There are some sensible changes here when it comes to trolleys. The big operators already identify their trolleys, usually across the handle. I know that both Coles and Woolworths in the communities I represent do so.

I guess what is being done here is that we have exempted the smaller businesses. We put some responsibility back on to the big businesses but done in a way that is not overly onerous. So if a shopping trolley is deemed to be hazardous—and I think it has already been said, 'Well, what is the definition around what is deemed to be hazardous?' It is often the application of common sense, in my view. If there is a trolley on a road or it could be another location, that has to be removed within 24 hours. For trolleys that are not in that position, there are up to three days to remove that trolley.

I was up in Alice Springs a couple of years ago, driving from there onto the APY lands. While in Alice Springs, I had the opportunity to go to a supermarket and my car was not parked in the car park. I put some stuff in the trolley for this trip and I went to push it out beyond the car park and the wheels locked up. It would be good to see the big operators over time move to geofencing and some have GPS trackers on trolleys. But that whole approach to geofencing I think makes some sense. Admittedly, it is a more expensive system, but the loss of trolleys adds up to a lot of money, time, energy and cash if you do not retrieve them, or if you do get them back they might be in a damaged state.

It is good to see that we are moving in the right direction. As I said, up in Port Augusta, it was a particular set of circumstances because you had the shopping district, the main street, you had Big W and you had Woolworths all very close to the historic wharf area. The wharf is closed off, disappointingly, at the moment because it needs a lot of money spent on it to get it safely back in place, and it is important that that is ultimately done because it is an important part of the community's heritage and it is also potentially a very important recreational and other resource for that community.

Having said that, because the shopping areas in the main were very close to the wharf, a lot of people would wander over to the wharf, get their gear—I am not quite sure why they were doing this—and then over the trolley would go. People have referred to the fact that they had to get divers in at a cost of $15,000 just to recover these trolleys. I think there were 500 trolleys in total. I do not know whether in time that would have turned into a great snapper drop. I doubt it. There are plenty of snapper drops through the gulf. But this was a real loss and it was a particular set of circumstances that led to that particular outcome.

Now, whether this bill is going to address that—because there are some very particular sets of circumstances in Port Augusta that in combination with a number of factors lead to these trolleys being taken and dumped, not just in the sea but all around the community. Indeed, we get that in Whyalla as well. You look at the trolleys and they are nearly always trolleys from Woolies and Coles and from the one-stop shopping centre. The Foodland in the eastern part has very few of their trolleys go missing, so that is a good thing for them and the community around about.

As to some of the costings that have been done, especially interstate where a far more punitive approach has now been taken to supermarkets because of costs, we are talking about in the millions of dollars. I think one figure was that the cost in New South Wales that was imposed upon councils as a result of trolleys going awry was something like $17 million. So we are not talking about a minor amount of money here when it comes to, obviously, a far bigger city, when it comes to looking at places like Sydney and other big centres in New South Wales. We do need to move to address and diminish as much as we can the issue in this state.

The other one that has come up and has been an issue on and off—and I like to see development in our cities; it is good to have development—is that sometimes on those sites there is waste, there is litter that has been generated, often by the companies on those sites, which is disappointing. So it is good that this is also addressed in this bill.

I know in Port Augusta, and to a greater degree in Whyalla, once again because of a number of particular factors, a lot of litter is being generated in a number of areas. Sometimes that is because groups of people are sleeping rough, and unfortunately the households nearby then cop all of this rubbish, some of it of a disturbing nature. I just had a meeting at lunchtime today about some of these issues in Whyalla and Port Augusta that as a community we need to be on top of so that they do not become normalised.

This is, I think, a worthwhile series of amendments to the bill. It is always good to get the feedback from the Local Government Association. They gave good marks for the consultation process and, indeed, there were a whole bunch of individuals who also responded. I do not have the number in front of me—I think there might have been 47 submissions or thereabouts, so not a bad effort. A lot of them came from the metropolitan area, but I do notice that the Whyalla city council, which has a few issues, as I said, responded, and I think the Port Augusta council, which has even more issues, also responded. It is a step forward and, like any legislation, you watch to see what the real world impact is going to be.

I think it was the member for Bragg who spoke about sometimes regulatory overload on small businesses. I am sometimes a fan of regulation. I think it is incredibly important for a well ordered and civilised society that wants to have good outcomes, but sometimes we do need to review the nature of the regulatory approaches that might well have been in place for quite a few years for a particular reason but have outlived their usefulness.

I think there always needs to be that degree of common sense applied, especially when we are looking at small businesses when it comes to the regulatory environment. You do not want to overload companies. I do have some small businesses come to me where I think some of the regulations and some of the elements of acts have failed the commonsense test, where a small business is expected to undertake activities that large businesses have people employed specifically to do that.

I had one example the other day—and once again this is a bit of a tangent, but it is about regulatory environments—of a mechanic who has operated his business for 35 years without any incident. He does not employ anyone; he is self-employed, and the audit that he had done the other day is totally stressing him out, and the series of fines and needing to replace equipment that has worked well for many years are just the sorts of things that could send a small business to the wall. I think in that particular instance, common sense has not been applied. However, in relation to this bill, overall it is a good bill. It reflects the consultation that occurred and I hope that it does lead to some improvements.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (16:29): I, too, rise in support of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024, a piece of legislation that I know will be well received in my electorate of Davenport. I say that because the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act is a piece of legislation that I hear referred to by its full name when I am out and about in my community, which does not happen very often.

I am fortunate to live in and represent a South Australian community that encompasses the best of the Adelaide Hills whilst being just 20 minutes from the city. With walking trails and wineries, we have beautiful views of the CBD across the Happy Valley Reservoir. Just down the road, we have residents in Seacombe Heights and Darlington living just minutes from the beach. We are lucky to live where we live and, overwhelmingly, the people who live where I live work to protect what we have because they know how good it is.

But the saying tells us that one bad apple can spoil a bunch. In order to protect what we have worked so hard to build and maintain, we need laws that draw a clear line in the sand. These changes to the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act do just that. Thankfully, they are changes already endorsed by South Australians. We know that because South Australians have spoken up across what was an extensive consultation period, so thank you to all those who participated.

What do these changes look like? This bill's reforms are wide-reaching and will deliver more efficient assessments and exemptions, a new expiation scheme designed to deter businesses from incurring penalties as a cost of doing trade, and clarification for councils where disposal of illegally dumped goods is concerned, and more. Let's start with trolleys, though. Living in proximity to the Aberfoyle Hub Shopping Centre, trolleys have proven a significant and longstanding pain point for my community. I know they have been the bane of the City of Onkaparinga for some time as well.

My electorate also encompasses pockets of the City of Marion, which has long grappled with trolley dumping in suburbs surrounding the Westfield shopping centre. It should come as no surprise, then, that it is not just individuals calling for change but councils too. In fact, trolley reforms were unanimously supported in council submissions during the two-stage community consultation period, resulting in the proposed insertion of new sections 24A and 24B into the act. Clearly, then, efforts to improve trolley owner identification engagement with retailers, including Coles, Woolworths, Bunnings, IGA and more, are a step in the right direction.

These new sections stipulate that an abandoned trolley must be collected within 72 hours, with responsibility for collection resting with the owner's nearest store. Abandoned trolleys that present a safety hazard, on the other hand, must be collected immediately. As I mentioned earlier, while abandoned trolleys present a serious frustration to local government, our councils are genuinely proactive in this space, and I would like to thank them for their efforts. I know they receive hundreds of calls weekly about abandoned trolleys, and they then have to take on that challenge to ensure that they find their home.

While we are talking about shopping trolleys and shopping centres, it would be remiss of me not to mention the Aberfoyle Hub Shopping Centre. As I mentioned, this bill seeks to clamp down on body corporates that view penalties as a cost of doing business. These are businesses that cast aside their corporate responsibilities and instead choose to pay a fine because to them that is easier than implementing long-term community-centric solutions. It is lazy, it is irresponsible, and while it is a vast minority of businesses that display these behaviours it just cannot be tolerated any longer. That is why amendments in section 18 of the act propose increased penalties for body corporates operating in breach of the legislation.

The Aberfoyle Hub Shopping Centre is home to several small local businesses. There is Michael at the Hub shoe repairs, John at the award-winning Hub Fruit Bowl, the Roka family at The Hub Tandoor, and there is a Hub cafe and so many others. Each of these businesses takes immense pride in their work and in their community and they deserve a centre owner that shares this commitment to its customers. Unfortunately, though, that is not always the case.

In 2024, the Aberfoyle Hub Shopping Centre does not have a recycling bin. Instead, it has four industrial rubbish bins. Despite my advocacy and that of many members of my community, management will not facilitate the removal of just one of those skip bins and have it replaced with a recycling bin. Instead, what we see is business owners searching desperately for alternatives or begrudgingly disposing of easily recyclable materials in a bin that is headed for landfill. This is plainly unacceptable, but protests to date have unfortunately fallen on deaf ears. It is not the only problem either. Bins around the centre can at times be spied overflowing, impacting on the nearby Happy Valley Sports Park and walking trails along Happy Valley Drive and in Sauerbier Creek.

With regard to the creek, I would like to also point out we have an OTR and a high school next door, and most of the kids will frequent the OTR after school for a slushy. Those slushy cups are everywhere around my community, and we have regular people who work hard to collect rubbish and try to keep our community clean. You could go any day of the week to Sauerbier Creek and find slushy cups and trolleys, in fact, becoming their own filtration in the creek, because there is just so much waste that you cannot get on top of it.

That is exactly why this bill provides a general duty for owners to prevent or minimise any litter resulting directly from their operations. New section 21A establishes a general duty to prevent or minimise litter generated from a business. This duty can be upheld through the provision of adequate bins for customers—it is not that difficult—reduced packaging or signage advising of where waste can be properly disposed of. These are simple and easy things that businesses can do to prevent unnecessary waste in our community and unnecessary waste going to landfill. It is not a tall order and, if you are not willing to meet reasonable community expectations, you can expect this government to take appropriate action.

Alongside new section 21A, the new section 22A provides councils an avenue to recover costs for clearing litter that presents a hazard to the community, because ratepayers should not take the hit when a business fails to uphold its social and environmental responsibilities. To the vast majority of businesses and families living in my electorate and right across the state, thank you; your efforts do not go unnoticed, and we will not allow the uncompliant minority to drag you down.

It is my hope that the new and improved definitions, more appropriately weighted penalties and the streamlining of dated processes will see our environment and our suburbs thrive. We have so much to be thankful for, living here in South Australia, and this legislation will protect all that makes our state such a wonder. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr BROWN (Florey) (16:36): The Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act addresses an area of law that may not immediately seem particularly exciting to many people in our community, but each of the various matters that are the subject of its provisions can have a significant impact on people's lives and daily experiences as well as on our environment and ecosystems. Indeed, they can create financial impacts in various ways.

When you get into the substance of this legislation, I think most South Australians would find that in fact there is a lot that bears relevance to their daily lives and their concerns, and that herein there is actually a good deal to care about. The act, which passed the parliament in 2016 and commenced in full on 1 July 2017, aimed to modernise nuisance and litter laws in our state as well as to resolve confusion within our community about the distribution of state and local government responsibilities, and a differentiation of roles in relation to local nuisance and littering issues.

Following a full year of operation, a review of the legislation was initiated. The Environment Protection Authority identified refinements and improvements that they suggested would better enable the act to support councils to deliver on the act's objectives. A discussion paper was prepared in collaboration with the Local Government Association of South Australia and was released in July 2019 for a three-month consultation period during which 47 submissions were received.

Following the consideration of all submissions, the consultation report was published on the Environment Protection Authority website in February 2021 and includes several recommendations to improve the legislation. Among those recommendations were:

to clearly delineate that the regulation of nuisance under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 on licensed premises is limited to nuisances associated with the service of alcohol, including patron and entertainment noise, and that all other nuisances from these premises, such as noisy air conditioners, are regulated by the local Nuisance and Litter Control Act;

to ensure that the act applies to the construction stage of developments approved under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016;

to include light as an agent of local nuisance;

to clarify the application of the act to tenanted properties; and

my personal favourite recommendation: to add shopping trolleys to the definition of general litter and provide councils with strengthened powers to address trolley abandonment, whether through improvements to litter abatement notices or by other means.

Between October 2022 and February 2023 a draft amendment bill and two sets of draft regulations were released, along with an explanatory report. These were open for a consultation period lasting four months. The program of consultation was promoted widely and incorporated a public meeting, which stakeholders, who had been previously engaged on these matters, were directly invited to attend, as well as a meeting with local government representatives which was hosted by the Local Government Association.

A total of 38 submissions were received during the consultation phase. Consideration of those submissions is now complete and the responses to the submissions made during the consultation on the draft amendment bill and draft regulations have been compiled into a report that is listed on the EPA's website. I understand that the EPA engaged with the local government association throughout the review process to ensure the needs and views of councils were heard, given their primary role in its administration. The CEO of the Local Government Association, Clinton Jury, was complimentary of the extent of the South Australian's government engagement with the local government sector and its peak body during the review, as well as the development of the proposed reforms.

The amendment bill now before us offers reforms across a number of aspects of the act, including streamlined processes for the assessment and issuing of exemptions; increased expiation fees to strengthen deterrence; a new offence of installing an air conditioner or a light in a place where it causes local nuisance; the addition of a general duty on the part of business owners to prevent or minimise litter arising from their undertakings; improved cost-recovery mechanisms for local government; clearer delineation of responsibility between local government entities and the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner for the regulation of different types of nuisances that occur on premises that are licensed under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997; and improvements in the provisions for the management and collection of abandoned shopping trolleys.

I note again that this last aspect of reform may hold particular interest for many members, but I know it has particular interest in my electorate and I regard these reforms as the most substantive among those that are included in the amendment bill. Just as an aside, having a significant shopping centre near residential areas in my electorate does mean that shopping trolleys are a regular hazard. Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time in my community of Mawson Lakes knows that shopping trolleys are routinely left either in our streets or near the creek that runs through the area, and they are often uncovered during our regular Clean Up Day in Mawson Lakes we hold annually.

Abandoned trolleys may present a safety hazard for pedestrians when they block footpaths, whether that is around shopping centres or around the broader residential areas of the community. These hazards can have a disproportionate impact on the elderly; persons with mobility challenges and people who are, for example, manoeuvring prams or mobility scooters as they move about their communities. Abandoned shopping trolleys impact upon local amenity, both as an obstacle to be avoided and as a significant eyesore, particularly when we see them dumped in our local parks and our waterways.

All varieties of litter can potentially affect our daily experiences in these ways, but shopping trolleys create a particular impact, both visually and practically because of their size. They are a very visually significant form of litter and their environmental impact can also be quite considerable. Recovering abandoned and dumped trolleys can also be a costly exercise.

This is by no means a phenomenon limited to my electorate, or even to Adelaide's northern suburbs. We know that it happens right across the nation and I think most probably the practice of dumping trolleys can be observed, albeit with greatly varying frequency, in every part of the nation wherein people have access to shopping trolleys. Unfortunately, however, it is the typical experience of people in my community that abandoned shopping trolleys are quite ubiquitous in our part of the world. The strengthening of laws in this area that leads to effective mitigation of the practice has the potential to make a real difference to the communities in my electorate.

Indeed, this issue is consistently raised with me by members of the community as an area that would benefit from greater intervention by government in terms of strengthened mechanisms in our laws to address and mitigate the phenomenon. It is advantageous that the local government sector in South Australia quite reasonably shares the state government's desire to improve legislation that aims to reduce the practice of dumping shopping trolleys. In fact, so great is the interest of local government that we saw a shopping trolley summit event hosted by the City of Marion in July 2018.

Engagement during the process of reviewing the act and developing the amendments now before us was high and consistent across many councils, and that level of engagement was helpful and needs to be commended. The Malinauskas Labor government has listened to the concerns put forward by local government, and importantly has also considered the views put forward by retailers in these matters. We take the position that the proposed reforms included in this amendment bill are balanced in their approach and support local government's activities in this area, whilst also not penalising retailers for the actions of their customers. In fact, it is true to say that the reforms aim to support cooperation between local government and retailers to reduce the practice of abandoning shopping trolleys and to facilitate easier recovery of dumped trolleys.

It is important that the mechanisms for such an effort come from legislation at the state government level. As per the consultation feedback summary in the EPA's consultation report on the review of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016, our local government sector broadly agrees:

The majority of councils consider the current provisions for the management of abandoned trolleys in the LNLC Act are ineffective and statewide provisions were preferable to implementing council bylaws.

If councils were each to undertake their own individual efforts through the making of by-laws that would apply and operate across their respective council areas, it would have the effect of creating a patchwork of different requirements and practices across the state. So it is greatly preferable to have a single, consistent framework that is enshrined in law at the state level.

Other states and territories across the nation, all of whom experience this issue, have laws in place to address it. It is worth considering what elements they incorporate. Local laws similar to the South Australian by-laws in Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland include: offences for a retailer to allow shopping trolleys outside designated precincts unless they have a trolley containment system in place, such as coin lock or geofencing; powers to impound shopping trolleys and charge a fee to retailers for their release; and an offence for failing to recover an abandoned shopping trolley within 24 hours of being notified.

The Australian Capital Territory has a scheme in place to manage abandoned shopping trolleys, but it must be clarified that the ACT government itself provides all services that are otherwise within the remit of local government. There are no local councils in the ACT. In any other jurisdiction, the programs that are in place would instead be administered by local government. It should be noted, however, that the ACT scheme includes:

offences for the removal of trolleys from shopping centres;

requirements for signage;

requirements for the identification of shopping trolleys;

requirements for retailers to keep shopping trolleys on the premises, with an exemption from this requirement where a trolley containment system is in place, such as a coin lock or geofencing; and

impoundment of abandoned shopping trolleys, with a payment of fees for their release.

In New South Wales, the Public Spaces (Unattended Property) Act 2021 includes:

an offence for the abandonment of shopping trolleys;

provisions to allow councils to impound shopping trolleys found in public places, with a fee to be paid by retailers for their release; and

provisions that councils may require shopping trolleys to be collected by retailers within a period of no less than 14 days, and failure to do so is an offence.

Local Government NSW estimates that, prior to the current laws being introduced in late 2021, the collection of abandoned shopping trolleys was costing local councils $17 million per year, and these costs were of course passed on to ratepayers. The analogous cost figure in South Australia is naturally a lesser sum, but it is certainly the case that for among the larger metropolitan councils there are significant costs incurred—and they, too, are passed along to ratepayers.

The amendments that are before us aim to provide councils with sensible tools that can only be applied to retailers on a case-by-case basis where there is an issue, as opposed to a blanket requirement for all retailers. The provisions of these amendments will enable local councils to work collaboratively with retailers to reduce the practice through improved and strengthened management practices, rather than to set out a direct punitive approach wherein we see retailers being fined for the actions of their customers.

It is well worth mentioning that engagement with major retailers, including Foodland, Woolworths, Coles and the Australian Retailers Association, as well as with smaller retailers, was undertaken during the consultation on the draft amendment bill. I think it is an accurate representation to say that the proposed amendments are broadly considered by retailers to offer a reasonable compromise position.

In line with views put forward by the Small Business Commissioner, a threshold of 20 shopping trolleys has been included, which will mean that councils will not be able to require the development of a management plan by retailers under this threshold.

Most of the proposed amendments will serve to strengthen clarity on the application of the act to shopping trolleys. For example, while shopping trolleys fall within the definition of general litter under the existing act, the amendment bill will specifically include shopping trolleys under the definition. By way of another example, the legislation's provisions in relation to litter abatement can already be applied to retailers regarding shopping trolley abandonment but will now include better guidance on how they can be applied to trolleys.

New provisions will require the identification of shopping trolleys, as well as for them to be collected in a timely fashion once the retailers to whom they belong have been notified. It is the case that many retailers already meet the identification requirement with branding of their trolleys, but for those that do not this could be simply achieved by updating, for example, the branding element on shopping trolley handles.

Expiation sums in relation to trolley-related issues are proposed to differ for body corporates and individuals, and are proposed to achieve greater deterrence for businesses that may otherwise absorb expiation fees into the cost of doing business. This reform was proposed by the Small Business Commissioner.

There are a range of other provisions, thoroughly outlined by the Deputy Premier in her second reading contribution as the responsible minister, that together aim to strengthen arrangements in relation to the powers and abilities of local councils and promote clarity in the responsibilities of both retailers and councils in relation to trolleys. This is along with a number of other elements aimed at improving the clarity, scope and effectiveness of our laws in relation to various types of nuisance as well as various types of litter.

To echo an observation of the Deputy Premier in her second reading contribution, the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act is ultimately an act for local government. It is therefore appropriate that local government was engaged and consulted very substantially in the development of these amendments. It is also notable that little of the substance of these amendments represents a dramatic change to the act as it now stands. It is more the case that modest improvements to the legislation have been identified and broadly agreed, with the aim of offering better potential for local councils to be effective in their efforts in relation to the management of nuisance and litter.

I commend all who were willing to engage in consultation, including the EPA, local councils, retailers and other stakeholders. It is the government's intention that these reforms effectively address genuine identified needs, and that once in operation these amendments will have the intended effects and make many matters easier and better for local councils and for our community. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms CLANCY (Elder) (16:51): I rise today to support the Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024, which seeks to amend the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016 and the Liquor Licensing Act 1997. As you can tell, I am pretty excited. It is a very, very good piece of legislation.

Introduced by the previous state Labor government, the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act modernised our nuisance and litter laws, supporting local government to address matters of nuisance and litter. Eight years on, the bill before us today seeks to introduce further reform to ensure these laws continue to best serve our communities.

One of the most popular reforms proposed contained herein is the inclusion of light as an agent of local nuisance. Like many in this place, my electorate is experiencing high levels of development and growth in both the residential housing and commercial business sectors, with large family blocks frequently being subdivided into two, three, or sometimes even four new residences. This is obviously great news for those looking to move into our community, and while we know that more housing supply will make housing more accessible for more South Australians, we must also ensure that growth and development supports our established communities.

Ideally, new development would provide a mix of single family homes, townhouses and units for our increasingly diverse communities. Young families, those who wish to age in place, and those who rent all form the social mix we think about when considering how our suburbs will change to accommodate our ever-increasing community needs.

Along with residential development, my electorate is also seeing an increase in commercial investment, and new childcare centres have begun popping up throughout our suburbs. These new developments are partly due to changes within the South Australian planning code and partly due to an increasing willingness by local councils to approve planning applications for childcare centres within residential areas. These new childcare centre developments of course need lighting, and developers rarely consider how lighting placement will impact nearby neighbours.

Last year, I was contacted by local residents whose lives had been interrupted by the placement of a high-wattage security light attached to the facade of a childcare centre in my electorate. The lights switched on at the slightest movement, 24 hours a day, and shone directly into their homes, both across the street and directly next door. One of those neighbours was a midwife, among other shift workers, who deserved and needed a good sleep in between shifts.

To be clear, this is not an ordinary light; this is the kind of light that streams through the tiny gaps surrounding blockout shutters and momentarily blinds drivers backing out of their driveways. Businesses and centres can have security that does not reduce the ability of neighbours to enjoy their own premises and safely exit their driveways in vehicles.

When I contacted the local council to see what could be done, I was informed that light nuisance is not an offence and the best they could do was ask the childcare centre to redirect it away from adjoining properties. So I contacted the childcare centre. When I contacted them, I was frustratingly advised that the lighting system was controlled by head office in Brisbane and that all staff could do was continue to make requests that the light be redirected. This back and forth went on for months and months.

Lighting can and does become a problem amongst residential neighbours as well. I have been contacted many times regarding the positioning of a neighbour's security cameras, an issue for SA Police in most instances, when people feel their privacy is violated by the direction of video recording equipment. This can be a particularly emotive issue for parents with young children, who rightly worry about the privacy of their families.

I have also witnessed security camera set-ups that include motion sensor lighting, lighting that is bright enough that people cannot leave their windows open at night or sleep due to the glare. I have spoken to residents who cannot reverse safely out of their own driveways due to a neighbour's motion sensor lighting system. I have spoken to a woman who has the entire side of her house lit up 24 hours a day due to her neighbour's high-wattage security lighting system.

As we live and work in closer proximity to one another, and as we see more and more commercial enterprises entering our suburbs, councils need to have options open to them to define and issue abatement notices for light nuisance. Up until now, all councils and SA Police have been able to do in these extreme instances of light nuisance is ask politely that the offending light be redirected. I, and so many in my community, are happy these reforms will change that.

Our government, in cooperation with the Environment Protection Authority, has spent a considerable amount of time identifying how our Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act can be improved to provide better outcomes for our community. A total of 47 submissions were received on the proposed amendments. I would particularly like to thank the City of Mitcham, that represents a large proportion of my electorate, for putting in one of those submissions.

I do not think that council staff will mind me sharing their forthcomingness with me in their desire to have light, in particular, included in the list of local nuisances, over which local government has jurisdiction to investigate and enforce. As a result of feedback received by both local governments and members of the public, light is proposed to be introduced as an agent of local nuisance. The intent of this amendment is to allow local government to deal with issues of light nuisance that may be reasonably avoided.

The Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act defines light as causing a nuisance where the light travels from one place to another and an authorised officer determines that the nature, colour, location, direction or extent of light is such as to constitute an unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of neighbouring premises by persons occupying those premises. Councils are already expending their resources in administration and investigation costs. This inclusion will allow council staff to issue a nuisance abatement notice and expiation fee for light nuisance, which will go some way to cover their own costs and act as a future deterrent.

The amendment of section 18 of the act amends the term 'natural person' to 'individual' and provides consistency with the Legislation Interpretation Act 2021 and amends the expiation fee to $1,000 in the case of a body corporate and $500 in the case of an individual. This reflects reforms across legislation to have higher expiations for bodies corporate in order to provide a greater level of deterrence from offending and to reduce the prevalence of the practice of bodies corporate just absorbing expiations into the cost of doing business.

A commercial childcare company based interstate, with minimal motivation to work productively with neighbouring residents on light nuisance issues, may indeed find a way to make sure their lighting is compliant when the expiation fees from council arrive in their inbox.

Additionally, it is proposed that the insertion of new section 30A will allow councils to register a nuisance abatement notice to land rather than the property owner. Councils have identified that the change of ownership of a property with a problematic light fixture or other nuisance device within an abatement notice is not able to be transferred to the new owner of the property and therefore a new regulatory process would need to be undertaken. This amendment ensures nuisance abatement notices that apply to controls regarding local nuisance caused by fixed equipment, such as light towers, are applied to new owners of the property, given the source of the nuisance transcends ownership. The registration of these notices will also ensure that the controls in place are made transparent through the land transaction process.

In a practical sense this means, for example, that when a residential or commercial property owner is issued with a nuisance abatement notice for excessive light it is not just the individual that must comply with the notice. Rather, the notice is attached to the land, and compliance is the responsibility of whoever is the owner at that particular time. My constituents currently living adjacent to and opposite the childcare centre I spoke of earlier will not have to worry about going through the nuisance abatement notice process repeatedly with council if and when the childcare business changes hands in the future.

The inclusion of light as an agent of local nuisance may sound like an esoteric addition to the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act, but from experience in my electorate I know that it will make a positive difference in our community by clearly defining what is acceptable when it comes to residential and commercial spaces. This amendment will give residents and councils a clear pathway forward to navigate what is becoming a more common problem across our suburbs.

The bill before us today also seeks to address the considerable issue of the dumping of shopping trolleys, which my community, particularly surrounding Castle Plaza shopping centre, is not immune to. These reforms include a new clause which sets out the obligation for identification of trolleys, a necessary step to ensure that members of the public and councils can identify and therefore contact the business that has supplied the trolley for their customers' usage. I would say that most large retailers already do this, and I do not see the new obligation as necessarily onerous for smaller businesses: a small weatherproof sticker is all that is required.

More importantly, however, is the new clause that sets out the requirement for timely collection of abandoned trolleys. You may be surprised to hear that my office was recently contacted about a collection of 19 abandoned Aldi trolleys behind Southern Sleep on South Road. The person who called my office had contacted both the Clovelly Park Aldi and Marion council; however, over the previous few months nothing had been done to remove the pile.

When my office called Southern Sleep on Monday to check if the trolleys had been collected yet, we learned from staff that there are now 20 trolleys dumped behind the shop. As yet, Aldi has not responded to my email requesting the removal of the trolleys. I sincerely believe that subsections (1) and (2) of 24B will go a long way to improve the time taken by retailers to collect their dumped property.

The collection of trolleys not causing a hazard within three business days is entirely reasonable, especially for large retailers who already have strategies in place to manage large numbers of trolleys on their premises. With regard to Clovelly Park Aldi, I hope they can manage to collect the 20 abandoned trolleys from behind the Southern Sleep business prior to the amendment taking effect, or they will risk a maximum expiation fee of $5,000.

I know that many in my community will be excited by the changes in this bill to the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act, and I am genuinely really excited to commend this to the house.

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (17:03): I rise to speak in support of this bill. The reforms contained in this bill have been in the works for many years. Since its commencement in 2017 we have gathered information and feedback from members of our local communities and stakeholders across the state. The Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act clearly defines state and local government roles and responsibilities regarding local nuisance concerns and littering issues. This legislation determines that the local council is the principal authority.

The act was first reviewed in 2019, and a discussion paper was released with the aim to seek feedback on the operation of the legislation. The Minister for Environment and the relevant agency, the Environment Protection Authority, were seeking this feedback to determine the scope for any future reforms. Upon reviewing the legislation, the Environment Protection Authority identified ways in which the act and regulations could be adjusted to further assist councils regarding nuisance and littering matters.

With assistance from the Local Government Association, the discussion paper was released for consultation for a three-month period, and a total of 47 submissions were received. These submissions were collated by the Environment Protection Authority, and several recommendations were put forward for consideration. These recommendations included:

clearly define the regulation of nuisance related to the service of alcohol on licensed premises under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 and all other nuisance regulated by the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act;

ensure that the act applies to the construction stage of developments approved under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016;

include light as an agent of local nuisance;

add shopping trolleys to the definition of 'general litter' and provide councils with further powers to reduce excessive trolley abandonment, whether through improvements to litter abatement notices or by other means; and

clarify the application of the act to tenanted properties.

These recommendations assisted in shaping the draft bill and two sets of draft regulations during 2022 and 2023. The consultation program for the bill and regulations was thorough and extensive. There was a meeting hosted by the Local Government Association for local government representatives and a public meeting with previously engaged stakeholders. I understand the stakeholders the Environment Protection Authority reached out to included Target, Big W and Kmart; IKEA; Coles, Woolworths and Aldi; IGA, Foodland and Drakes; Cheap as Chips; Bunnings and Mitre 10; Officeworks; and SA Independent Retailers, the National Retail Association and the Australian Retailers Association.

Consultation advertising also took place in The Advertiser, on the EPA website, social media, talkback radio and in community newspapers. In this round of consultation, 38 submissions were received, which I understand largely related to shopping trolley reforms. I know shopping trolley reforms are something local communities across our state have been pushing for. They can really be an extensive nuisance in our local communities. I know there is one particular abandoned trolley that has almost become a permanent fixture near a local school in my community, so I am looking forward to seeing less of that in the future thanks to this legislation.

This legislation truly covers so many aspects of our day-to-day lives. In my community, with the arrival of many more apartment blocks in the city, local residents are now faced with ground floor mixed-used space—for instance, a cafe or restaurant on the bottom floor of their apartment building—and with that can come challenges. Obviously, these kinds of mixed-use developments add increased vibrancy to an area. They improve access to services, cafes or restaurants for locals, but they also have some other challenges that come with them, whether that is through noise, odour or strata corporation dealings.

It is great to see that these reforms are aimed at clearly defining the responsibility between councils and the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner when it comes to regulating the different types of nuisances that may come up in matters relating to apartment building scenarios and how it can float between the two. This amendment bill also seeks to reform the act by including improved cost recovery mechanisms for local government, more efficient processes for the assessment and issuing of exemptions and the addition of a general duty for business owners to prevent or minimise litter from their business.

Further reforms include provisions to improve the management of and collection of shopping trolleys that are abandoned, clarifications around the application of the Unclaimed Goods Act and the disposal of illegally dumped items, and the inclusion of installing an air conditioner or light as an offence if it causes a local nuisance as defined in the act. By a reform proposed by the Small Business Commissioner, this legislation also seeks a greater deterrence for businesses by offering different expiation amounts for body corporates and regular people. Businesses may otherwise absorb expiation fees into the cost of running their business and take no notice.

I would like to acknowledge all the efforts of the Deputy Premier and the Environment Protection Authority in getting these reforms to the house. I also want to take this opportunity to thank my local council, the City of Prospect, in relation to a matter that is in many ways a little bit similar to the aims of this act, and that is in regard to two abandoned Caltex service stations that we had in our community on Main North Road and North East Road. I understand they were previously service stations that had been closed down and then left. There were flimsy fences that were always falling down, weeds were piling up and there was graffiti.

At one point a local resident contacted me to say that he had strangers jumping up on top of the abandoned building and peering into their yard. So I want to thank the work of our local council. We were able to appeal to the companies to do something about those sites and we are really pleased now to see construction underway to dismantle and remediate those two sites that really were eyesores on our local community and were able to potentially attract antisocial behaviour. At the very least, they looked terrible.

We do know that our local councils do a lot of work in our community to clean up our community, to make our communities as wonderful as they are, and in this particular instance I do want to thank the City of Prospect for working with me on this particular issue to see these sites dismantled. They will hopefully go up for sale to be sold and have something much better on the sites. With those comments, I commend this bill to the house.

Ms HUTCHESSON (Waite) (17:10): I rise in support of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I thank everybody who has been involved in the extensive consultation. It is so important that we do all we can to try to make sure that there is not just stuff lying around the place. The fact that trolleys can just be dumped and nobody seems to want to take responsibility really needs to be addressed. It is against the act to litter but we do not see the penalties being strong enough and so there is not much of a deterrent.

The amendment bill that we are here today to discuss includes reforms across numerous aspects of the act. These include:

more efficient processes for the assessment and issuing of exemptions;

increased expiation fees to improve deterrence;

the inclusion of an offence to install an air conditioner or a light in a place where it causes local nuisance;

the addition of a general duty for business owners to prevent or minimise litter resulting from their business, including in stormwater management systems;

improved cost recovery mechanisms for local government;

improved delineation of responsibility between councils and the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner for the regulation of different types of nuisance occurring on premises licensed under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997; and

provisions to improve the management and collection of abandoned shopping trolleys.

In my electorate this last point is not so bad. We have five shopping precincts and all have at least one major retailer. We have two Woolworths, a Drakes, a Coles, an Aldi and a Foodland. Some of these retailers have pretty good trolley collection or trolley laws.

I want to make a special shout-out to Travis and his team at Drakes where you are not actually allowed to take your trolley outside of the store. You have to get all your groceries, take them to the cash register and then the young men and women who work there have a sack truck trolley and they take all of your shopping, walk you to your car and pack your car for you. It really makes a big difference when you have had a long day. I appreciate the fact that they continue to do that, because they are a really great employer. They also do not have electronic serve-yourself check-outs. They are there for our community and they serve our community well.

Our local Aldi has a $2 coin token—I do not know whether that is a deterrent but they never seem to have their shopping trolleys in our area lying around the place; $2 means a lot to some people—or you can have a token. Either way, you always feel like you need to take that $2 back, so it is a way to collect shopping trolleys.

So it is not a huge issue in my area that I can see. Every now and then there are shopping trolleys lying around and sometimes we have had to call the supermarket and ask them to come to collect them. But it is good to know that this bill will increase people to do the right thing.

I have heard from a member of the public who lives just outside of my electorate—in fact, the member for Elder also mentioned the same community member. Quite clearly, he has a lot of concerns around the dumping of shopping trolleys. He came to us to talk about these shopping trolleys that were dumped at the back of Sleepeasy and, in fact, Sleepeasy rang us to talk about his concerns. So we have all tried to work together to get these trolleys collected, yet they may still be there. Hopefully, now that they are able to be collected within quite a quick time frame, we will see them removed.

It is good to know that there will now be tougher regulations. It is the case that the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act already makes it an offence to abandon a shopping trolley. However, local government consider that offence to be largely ineffective, and have communicated this to our government. Penalties are only proposed to be applied for basic foundational elements of the reforms, being the identification of trolleys and their collection in a reasonable time frame where they are identified as belonging to the retailer. The bill requires owners of these shopping trolleys to now identify their shopping trolleys so that we know exactly where they have come from. This will aid in their collection and will allow them to be reported.

These will need to be collected within a reasonable time frame, as I said, generally within three business days, unless, of course, they create a hazard, and sometimes they do. They can be dumped on footpaths, they can be dumped in local areas where people are trying to get through, which is a bit of a hazard, so it is good that they will be collected. Penalties will be applicable for noncompliance.

They are a pollutant, and they can also be a health and safety issue. They do tend to degrade, and they can get into our waterways and into all sorts of places. It does happen everywhere and it is difficult to catch the offenders, as I said. The abandonment of trolleys is considered littering under the act already, and it is applicable only to the person who abandons the trolley. The offence this time will be strengthened by these reforms through adding shopping trolleys specifically to the definition of 'general litter', and the penalty will be $210.

The amendment bill that is before us provides consistent obligations regarding the identification of these shopping trolleys. It also aims to provide councils with sensible tools that can only be applied to retailers on a case-by-case basis where there is an issue, as opposed to a blanket requirement for all retailers. The provisions will enable councils to work with retailers in problematic areas to reduce the issue through improved management practices, rather than provide a direct punitive approach whereby retailers are fined for the actions of their customers.

This year, and in the last two years, I have assisted the local Blackwood Action Group with Clean Up Australia Day. We form groups and we walk through Blackwood picking up all the rubbish. There is always a sigh and a moan from the group that gets the local fast food joint because they know it is going to be a big job. But they are not alone. There are other restaurants in my area that have more rubbish than their bins can accept, with very little effort to recycle in some cases. I know this firsthand because we have had a resident come to see us about it.

The amendment bill introduces a general duty for these businesses to prevent litter caused by or related to their business, including obligations upon relevant businesses to maintain existing stormwater management systems, so that these systems remain functional. Currently, the installation of stormwater management systems, such as gross pollutant traps or oil plate separators, is often a requirement in development approvals; however, there is no obligation upon businesses to maintain them.

That is where the problem starts, especially for a constituent of mine who lives right behind a couple of small restaurants—not quite fast food, but in the middle. She had a lot of trouble with the grease traps—they were literally in her backyard—which were continually overflowing. This caused a lot of problems as the grease itself would seep under her fence into her backyard. She had a dog, and that poor dog had to trounce around in her backyard, which was full of grease and disgusting, smelly and revolting things.

We worked hard with council, and council worked with the owners of the restaurants and the owners of the property to try to get it fixed. It took a really long time. In the end, the owners had to put in a gutter almost, as well as install new bins and clean out the traps. It was a lot of work. Another couple of businesses in my area have bins that are not sufficient to look after the rubbish that they have. Business owners need to be responsible. They need to also understand that they need the capacity to take on their rubbish.

Greater clarity will be provided to councils on the clean-up and disposal of illegally dumped items, especially when environmental health and physical hazards are created, exactly like my constituent. It was very unfortunate for her dog. She, in fact, ended up having to keep it inside. The other thing that that constituent has is a big floodlight right in her backyard, which shines right into her bedroom over the fence. We have tried for a long time to get the business to either put a shelter on it or point it downwards so that it is not going into her backyard. A new offence that is being discussed today is for the installation of air conditioners or light sources where they cause a local nuisance, so I am hoping for my constituent that we will be able to rectify that and find some peace for her.

Another member of my community had a new neighbour build next door. They installed a massive air conditioner that made the most ridiculous amount of noise. Council went backwards and forwards with her, with sound recording meters, all sorts of things like that, but it continues to be a problem for her. This new offence proposed for the installation of an air conditioner or light source in a location where it causes local nuisance is to ensure that installers give due consideration to the siting of equipment before they put them in rather than once they have been put in. Often, local nuisance associated with these devices is as a result of poor locations. There is a cost to relocate a device, so it is much better to do it before it is installed.

The implementation of this reform will include communication with trade associations, and it is expected that word-of-mouth will also help with educating installers. The consequential amendments also proposed for the Liquor Licensing Act will provide greater delineation between nuisance matters covered by each act, limiting the Liquor Licensing Act to noise from patrons and entertainment. This amendment has been sought by local councils and the liquor and gaming commission. It is the case that sometimes fun spills out onto the footpath after a night out, so it is important that we have these regulations in place.

I encourage everybody to always take your shopping trolley back to the shopping trolley bay; that way you do not have to worry about whether or not you have done the wrong thing. I encourage our businesses to clearly label their shopping trolleys to make sure that people know they are theirs and so that they can be returned to them. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder.

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