HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-08-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 May 2024.)

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (19:30): I do not wish to labour the house tonight in regard to a second reading speech. The position of the opposition has already been set out in previous debate on this bill, which I note has been on the Notice Paper for a fairly significant period of time. However, we are dealing with it tonight. To that end I just indicate that the opposition will seek to enter the committee stage tonight, but not for a significant period of time.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (19:31): I would like to thank all members for their contributions to the second reading of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. A number of members noted how important the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016 is for the resolution and prevention of issues of local nuisance and littering in the community, and that the act is relied upon by members of this place to deal with a wide range of constituent inquiries and issues.

The member for Davenport reflected that when out and about in her community the act is often referred to her by name, which is almost unique across the South Australian statute book, and the member for King told us about Lesley from her electorate, who regularly reports abandoned trolleys around and in Cobbler Creek and the Little Para River. As the minister responsible for the act, I receive a great deal of correspondence regarding the act from members of the community, from members of this place on their behalf, and in correspondence from constituents in my own electorate. Port Adelaide experiences its share of local nuisances and trolley abandonment.

As acknowledged by the member for Bragg, the amendment bill contains various reforms that will reduce red tape, particularly for small business. The amendment bill will provide for the streamlining of the exemption application process under the act by building in greater flexibility, such as allowing councils to waive the need for an applicant to submit a site nuisance management plan, which is currently mandated where the nuisance is of a limited nature or unavoidable, allowing councils to determine an appropriate length of an exemption and allowing councils to extend an exemption without the need for further application.

The bill also includes reforms, included on advice from the Small Business Commissioner, aimed at better protecting small businesses from the nuisance impacts associated with large construction projects by increasing expiations for body corporates that cause local nuisance in order to provide a strong deterrent. The Small Business Commissioner also suggested that the ability to issue a litter abatement notice for shopping trolleys should be limited to businesses with more than 20 trolleys, which has also been incorporated within the bill.

While there will be an opportunity to discuss the legislation in more detail if required during the committee stage, it is worth responding to some of the concerns and perceived issues raised by the opposition during the second reading in preparation. There was concern raised about the potential impact on small business of the offence within the bill to install a light or air-conditioner in a location where it causes local nuisance. It is important to understand that this new offence essentially replaces an existing provision of the act, being clause 4(f) of schedule 1, which is proposed to be deleted by clause 18(3) of the bill.

Clause 4(f) of schedule 1 of the act declares the installation of a fixed machine, which includes air conditioners, in a location where the noise travels to a neighbouring property and that noise is considered unreasonable by an authorised officer, to be a form of local nuisance and therefore subject to local nuisance provisions of the act.

The proposed offence extends to the installation of lights as lights was only added by regulation as an agent of local nuisance under the act on 1 April 2024. The proposed amendment would establish a standalone offence that is a lesser penalty amount than the current penalty. The standalone offence has a $210 expiation proposed, whereas the current provision operates as a form of local nuisance and that carries a $500 expiation.

It is uncertain whether any councils have used the existing provision, but anecdotally the EPA has been advised of instances where air-conditioning installers are now considering local nuisance when installing equipment. 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 other perceived issues and concerns that were raised were regarding the shopping trolley provisions of the bill. As mentioned in my earlier contribution, Coles were the only retailer to provide a written submission during the consultation process and were accepting of the proposed reforms. I also personally met with the chief executive officer and chairperson of the South Australian Independent Retailers prior to introducing this bill and at the end of this meeting they too indicated that they were comfortable with what was being proposed. I understand that they may have since indicated a different position.

The issue of abandoned shopping trolleys can be broken down into two elements, the first being the abandoning of trolleys and, once they are abandoned, the second element being their prompt return to their owner, so they do not negatively affect our streets and waterways or the amenity of the local neighbourhood. The act of abandoning the trolley, that is, how they end up proliferating around our neighbourhoods, is done by customers and others already covered by the act as a littering offence that attracts a $210 expiation.

The bill will enhance the offence provision by including shopping trolleys under the definition of 'general litter' in the act, but importantly the offence already exists. The bill also has provisions that support preventative management strategies being put in place in locations where there are significant abandonment issues. The act of abandoning a trolley will not in the vast majority of cases meet the thresholds of theft outlined in section 134 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. The offence of littering is straightforward in its application to discarding or disposing of an item to a place that it should not be and is already applied to the abandonment of shopping trolleys.

With that, and given that I am likely to be entering one of my coughing phases six weeks into a virus, I will thank everyone for their contributions and look forward to discussion during the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr BATTY: Thank you to the minister for providing those comments then, which might shortcut some of our questions tonight. I will try to be as efficient as possible. Clause 3 is the interpretation clause. I am interested in the addition of shopping trolleys to the definition of 'general litter'. Does the minister consider shopping trolleys already to be in that definition and this is just a point of explicit clarification?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, that is correct.

Mr BATTY: What is the effect of shopping trolleys being general litter? Does that mean that section 22 of the act applies to shopping trolleys, in regard to the illegal disposing of litter and certain penalties attached to the disposing of litter? If that is the case, who do those penalties apply to at the moment? Is it the shopper who takes the trolley or is it the supermarket?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is the case, and it is the shopper who is the person who is doing the littering.

Mr BATTY: How many expiations have been issued, say, in the last year to shoppers who have littered a trolley?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We do not believe there have been any in the last year, but I will take that on notice should that be inaccurate and clarify the record. That may in part be due to, although we do consider that they were captured, there being a degree of lack of clarity, having not changed the legislation.

Mr BATTY: In that case, shopping trolleys are already within the definition of 'general litter'. That means section 22 applies. That means we could be fining people who abandon trolleys on the street, but we are not. I just wonder whether any thought has been given to actually trying to enforce the provisions we already have and addressing the root cause of someone taking a trolley illegally and disposing of it as litter, rather than simply penalising supermarkets.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is fundamentally a council choice because they are the ones enforcing the bill. If we were to rely only on that provision to tidy up the shopping trolleys then there would be enormous effort required from councils, which would be expensive and therefore expensive for ratepayers, and also would perhaps not be regarded as the highest order issue for that expenditure, but it could in fact be quite intrusive as well, having inspectors circling shopping centres looking for fines to enforce. It might not as elegant a solution as that being proposed through the addition of some of the clauses in this bill.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: If a proprietor of a supermarket or a supermarket owner has done everything they possibly can to prevent the theft or the removal of trolleys from the car park—we see geolocking in other countries and we even see it in other states—what happens if one of their trolleys ends up the subject of this act? Are they exempt from any penalties or are they treated differently because they have done everything humanly possible and available to prevent the situation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The member puts forth a very correct view that shopping centre owners and supermarket owners and operators generally try as much as possible to keep those trolleys within their control and have various options before them at present to do that. Geolocking is one. I understand there is at least one shopping centre that does that in Adelaide, but also of course you can have the coin connection. You can have various ways in which you discourage the taking away of that trolley.

However, it does happen that trolleys are removed. The intention of this bill is to be able to have the contact details of that supermarket on the trolley so that they can be contacted and asked to pick it up. The intention is that we are helping shopping centres to retrieve the trolleys when they have gone further afield than their normal collection process can capture, while if they do not do it within a period of time that has been discussed and negotiated with the retailers, that could attract a fine. The intention is not wanting to fine the owners of the trolleys; the intention is to create a system that assists them in having the trolleys identified, located and brought back.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Is there any liability that is additional to what is there now on the damage that that escaped trolley may cause to the owner of the trolley?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, there is not.

Clause passed.

Clauses 4 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Mr BATTY: Clause 7 deals with the installation of devices that might cause a nuisance. Who was consulted specifically on this clause?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This was included as part of the broader consultation on the bill, but there was also contact made with a number of air conditioner associations, mechanics and so on—I might not have the terminology entirely correct and that is not my adviser's fault, it is mine—but nothing was heard back to alter the way in which the bill was being constructed.

Mr BATTY: Was the Small Business Commissioner consulted on this clause?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, on the entire bill, including this clause.

Mr BATTY: Did the Small Business Commissioner have any views on this particular clause and the impact it might have on small business owners who might be operating in the air conditioner industry, and also on whether it is going to increase any costs to the consumer? If you have the installer of these devices taking a lot more risk, does that come at a cost?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No. I am advised the reason that there were not any concerns raised is that this is a provision that existed in the schedule of the existing act, and in fact by bringing it in through this bill we are reducing the expiation cost.

Mr COWDREY: Just a point of clarification in regard to 19A(1). The way that the section is constructed references the person who 'installs a designated device, or causes a designated device to be installed'. I am just seeking some clarity from you on whether that is 'and' or 'or'. Is the key here in terms of who is responsible the person who contracts somebody to install the air conditioner, irrelevant of whether the location is designated by that home owner, or is it the installer themselves who is captured by this provision?

Just for clarity, I think it is important to get on the record, as the construction of the section can be quite ambiguous, I want to be clear on the root, for lack of a better term—the person who retains the need to potentially be fined. Is that with the person who procures or contracts somebody to install or is it with the installer themselves?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is the person responsible for making the decision about where it is located, so that may be the procurer who says, 'You must put it here,' or it may be the person who installs it. The person who has procured the service has just said, 'I want an air conditioner somewhere.' It is intended to be aimed at the decision-maker, because it is the decision-maker who can then have it located in an area that does not create the nuisance in the first place.

Mr COWDREY: Whose responsibility is it under the act to determine who the decision-maker was?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The council enforces this, so local government.

Mr COWDREY: Do they have any powers to ask questions of owners or installers? Do they have the ability to procure documents to support the investigation to determine who the appropriate decision-maker was? I guess the question is: how do you see this actually playing out in practice?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is legitimate to ask. The act, which this bill amends, contains considerable detail on the powers that local government have to enforce this act.

Mr COWDREY: I just have a point of clarification. Exactly what does exist? You have referenced it broadly, but exactly what does exist and what process is relied upon by councils to determine who the appropriate decision-maker is?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I can direct the member to section 14 of the current act, which talks about the powers of authorised officers. Probably rather than reading all of it out, it might be worth the member having a read through. It includes things like that at any reasonable time, having the power to enter or inspect the premises, to ask questions, to inspect, to take samples—possibly not as relevant in this case—to examine, copy and take extracts from plans, specifications and so on. So the existing act covers the circumstances in which it would be reasonable to know who had made the decision to place the air conditioner in that location.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: What are the consequences for someone who is asked to produce such documents to refuse those documents, refuse access or to refuse to answer questions?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are straying rather into existing law. I do not want to be unhelpful but the existing law is not quite the subject of these clauses that we have before us. In that section 14, the powers of authorised officers, it does list the consequences for people who do not comply, who hinder or obstruct. It also talks about when compliance might tend to incriminate, and what a person is able to do in those circumstances, and also identifies some limits to the authority of the officers. Again, rather than my reading into Hansard a piece of legislation that already exists it might be worth familiarising yourselves with that or we could provide a more extensive brief at a later date.

Mr COWDREY: One final question in regard to this section: you mentioned earlier that you had not had any response from anybody in the air-conditioning business, the air-conditioning association. Were any follow-up attempts made to contact anybody in the industry to get their view as to whether this was workable or whether there could be any improvement to the current process in the industry on determining the location of air conditioners?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There were, I am advised, two opportunities for the profession to participate. Initially, as part of consultation, documents were sent out to say, 'This is what we are intending to do.' Regardless of whether people responded or not, the post consultation document was set out saying, 'This is what we now intend to do and this is what we have heard.' Nothing was heard, according to the EPA, from any of those organisations.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Are there any exemptions for this section of the bill? For example, I am just thinking that as we are seeing more choice in housing, as housing is increasing in cost and we will be seeing more balconies, smaller apartments and fewer options for the placement of air conditioners, could this act actually stop somebody from getting an air conditioner because they do not have any choice as to where the position of that air conditioner is to be fitted?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In some ways, both sides of the situation that you are articulating are why we are here. It is true that, as we have some greater density or medium-scale density with apartments with balconies and also with houses that are expanding to the limits of their blocks and are therefore very close to their neighbours, it may appear to be difficult to install in a place that does not create a nuisance.

But it is because of that density and that tightness of proximity that we need to make sure that we are putting every effort into having houses being designed and built and having air conditioners installed in a way that does not cause these challenges that last for the rest of the duration of those buildings if nothing is done. The clause itself does talk about ways in which a defence can be provided, including that there was a reasonable unforeseeability of the creation of nuisance, that the person who installed it did not choose where it was to be installed, and that there may have been a defect.

In the situations that the member describes, while not being an exhaustive planning or design expert—neither myself nor my adviser—the option of having these units located on the roof is usually the one that is adopted. Providing it complies and has planning and development consent, it would be preferable to having the kind of noise on your balcony that prevents both you and your neighbours being able to use the balcony when the weather requires having air conditioning on.

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Mr BATTY: This is probably one of the more substantial causes so far as it relates to shopping trolleys, a new requirement to identify shopping trolleys and also new requirements for supermarkets to collect shopping trolleys. I am interested in fleshing out a little how it is going to work in practice. I might use the minister's own example that we have heard about a little bit, not only in here but in the briefing, of Port Augusta in 2018, when apparently about 500 trolleys were discovered underwater and were removed. They were being dumped, effectively, then got fished out at a cost of $15,000.

I am curious how that very situation might operate under the new law. Presumably, someone is going to go to the local IGA in Port Augusta and say, 'We have identified 500 of your trolleys. They're underwater.' That IGA then has three business days to get a crane and go and fish out those trolleys at a cost of $15,000. If they fail to do that within three days, they are getting a penalty of $5,000 per trolley—$2.5 million. Is that how it is going to work in Port Augusta?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The member raises a very interesting challenge because, of course, one would not expect that that would be the normal experience. It is always poor form to create a law aimed only at the extreme, but equally to ignore the extreme possibility is not sensible. There is in the current act a clause that relates to the defence of due diligence. What we have been discussing is creating an amendment that we might take into the upper house to address that reasonableness question so that we do not trigger a perverse outcome that would be unreasonably punitive on a shopping trolley owner.

Mr COWDREY: With regard to the minister's response, it is my understanding that the example that was just used by the shadow minister on this occasion, yourself previously, is that the activity of taking the trolley from the location and dumping is theft; it is an illegal activity. You have just discussed potential amendments to provide a defence for—I cannot remember the exact language used, but is criminal activity something that the government would consider in terms of a defence?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There are two offences that we are talking about, if we can just disentangle this. The first is the offence of littering by leaving a trolley somewhere. The second is, given that happens and it is very rarely observed by anyone to know who has done it, particularly to the point of being able to prove through evidence that they have done it, there is now proposed to be a mechanism to encourage trolley owners to have their contact details on the trolley and then a process of encouraging them to pick it up quickly once they are told that it is somewhere, and an expiation notice should they fail to do that.

In the instance we are talking about here, the extreme case being that someone, some group of people, over a short or long period of time managed to amass hundreds of trolleys and then located them in a place that is invisible and inaccessible for most of the time, I do not know how those trolleys got there but I suspect that there would never be enough evidence to prove who did that—singular or plural did that. Therefore, on the question of theft or littering, we maintain that dumping the trolley is substantially a littering case, whether that could ever be proved.

What we are talking about in determining an amendment to avoid unreasonableness in that kind of case is that the shopping trolley owners, having been victims of something that is quite an extraordinary effort, should not then be fined to the extent that would otherwise be proposed for being incapable of recovering within three days. Quite that test of reasonableness is what we are working on, and we will have something ready for the upper house.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: How often is the minister notified of a missing shopping trolley? I am referring to new section 24B—Collection of shopping trolleys. Subsection (1)(b) provides:

(b) the person is notified by the Minister or a council, or the person otherwise becomes aware, that a trolley provided by the person is located at a place…

How often is the minister notified and how often has she contacted people over missing shopping trolleys? Why is the minister listed as the recipient of notification in the act?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: At the moment there is not a requirement under the current act for anyone to tell the minister about shopping trolleys, and therefore, of course, I have not had any notifications, other than perhaps occasionally into my electorate office as a local member.

The way that this act is constructed—and it is an act that is essentially enforced by local councils, but under the aegis of the EPA as it is an EPA-associated act—in other elements of the legislation is that the minister is the one who is seen to be responsible and therefore can have activities reported to them, but under delegation that would immediately drop to being the EPA receiving that complaint. Importantly, councils are listed because that is where one would expect the notification to occur—if not, ideally, to the shopping trolley owner because their contact details will now be located on the trolley.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Section 24B states that if:

(b) the person is notified by the Minister…that a trolley provided by the person is located at a place outside the business premises of the business in circumstances where the trolley is, or may cause, a hazard…

Under what circumstances would the minister take that extraordinary step of notifying somebody?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is extremely unlikely that the minister personally would, but it is feasible that the EPA would have been contacted, as happens because we have a hotline for people who are exercised about nuisance in their environment. They may well phone through to the hotline, and customary practice under this act is that the EPA holds the delegation from the minister and that the EPA would then get straight on to the trolley owner to let them know. This creates the mechanism for that to occur.

Mr BATTY: I thank the minister for her previous response to my fairly extreme example. It is the extreme example that has been thrown up quite often as justification for requiring these provisions, though. When did the minister first become aware of concerns about a lack of a defence of reasonableness in this clause, and is there any reason why we are proceeding with the bill tonight without that reasonableness defence in there?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This was not raised at all during consultation. This is something that has come to light in preparing for the legislation to go through. We need to get final legal advice on whether that reasonableness is already contained within the combination of the bill and the existing act, or whether there is indeed a gap that needs to be filled. Usually, legislation is able to operate within reasonableness, but we do want to test that, and that is why we are seeking to do that until we get it into the upper house in a couple of weeks.

Mr BATTY: As I think you know, the South Australian Independent Retailers have some concerns about particularly this aspect of the bill, and they wrote to you on 16 October 2023. For the record, I am going to read out part of their letter:

SAIR's owners are opposed to the proposed draft Bill i.e. Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2022 as, in our view, it sets a wide-ranging precedent and would appear to emphasise supermarkets and less focus on other general retailers e.g. hardware, liquor, garden nursery retailers etc.

The proposed Bill seeks to:

suggest that if someone takes a shopping trolley not for its intended use, it is not considered theft, moreover it is deemed as a service offered by the owner of the shopping trolley

penalise the owners of shopping trolleys where people have in the owners' view, stolen the trolleys and dumped them within the community

It is our view that the concept of a person taking an owner's shopping trolley, and not using it for its intended use (i.e. to carry products from the shop for convenience and returning it back to the shopping trolley containment site) should be treated as theft and that the way this law is proposed, is fundamentally flawed.

Supermarket owners do not want their shopping trolleys stolen and already have in place robust and innovative systems to prevent theft and misuse.

Owners provide shopping trolleys for customers convenience and are an important investment to their businesses. There is a cost to supermarket owners with what they believe is 'trolley theft'. They are proactive in trying to prevent it and take the collection and maintenance of shopping trolleys very seriously.

If this draft Bill becomes law, then in our view it sets a dangerous precedent for other industry sectors.

SAIR owners seek to reduce the level of shopping trolley misuse and will continue to work to that end with all stakeholders and respective agencies across the State, regarding this matter. More regulation pinned to the owners of shopping trolleys is not, in our view, the answer and does not address the root cause of the issue.

This draft Bill if passed in its present form makes one person responsible for another person's illegal action.

In light of that, my question is whether the minister has met with SAIR since receiving this letter and how does she respond to their concerns?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, indeed, I took this letter very seriously. I think what happened was that there was a bit of a hiatus in the leadership of that organisation. So, when we were undertaking the initial consultation and they did not respond, we took it that that meant they were okay with it. But actually I think it was Colin Shearing's temporary absence from that role that meant there was a bit of a gap in being responsive.

As soon as I got this letter I was obviously very concerned, not only that we need to hear from any sector but also we in South Australia are rightly very proud of that third provider of supermarkets and we do not want to do anything to create difficulties for them. I therefore did have a meeting with them, I think in early December, and held up the legislation because I did not want to proceed to get it through—although we had substantially prepared it—until we had been able to have that conversation. That meeting, as I mentioned at the close of the second reading speech, went very well.

I think they have indicated on radio that they still have some concerns; that is understandable. They have not seen it come through yet, and they are of course always very alert to making sure that their companies and their businesses are being well protected. The reality is that once we talked through all the details of how it would actually work they were substantially supportive of understanding that we were not trying to create a more punitive regime, as exists in some other states. We are trying to be very responsive to the needs of our retailers.

Where we differ I think—and I suspect it is now largely a semantic argument—is whether taking a trolley outside the bounds of a supermarket and then walking away from it constitutes theft. We can look at the thresholds of what is understood to be theft in section 134 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. According to that section, the person:

(1) …deals with property—

(a) dishonestly; and

(b) without the owner's consent; and

(c) intending—

(i) to deprive the owner permanently of the property; or

(ii) to make a serious encroachment on the owner's proprietary rights.

That is an exaggeration for the vast majority of occasions on which a shopping trolley has been pushed a little bit further to take the goods home and then be left on the kerbside. That is more about perhaps not being bothered to take it back or not valuing the need for that to go back than it is to actively seek to steal.

It is also the case that, although the retailers point out the efforts to which they go to keep their property within their control, they do actually give the trolleys to people to take off their immediate premises, out of their shops. They do not all—in fact very few now I think—use the coin-operated mechanism and they do not use geoblocking, so they have made a choice that they are prepared to allow people the expected convenience.

What comes with that is an obligation to be part of not allowing that to create a local nuisance. The obligation is primarily on the person who dumps it and is seen to be having littered, and we have the expiation for that. However, there also ought to be an obligation for them to at least have their details on the trolley and at least be prepared to go out and pick it up in the event that they are told where it is.

The retailer who came along with Colin to the meeting indicated that they do that, they are very active in making sure that they are constantly circling and keen to hear from people about where their trolleys have been left and picking them up, because they are of value to them. They are not cheap units to purchase and they are part of their business model. So while we have a difference, perhaps, in the terminology of the legal weight of the word 'theft' versus 'littering' we, I think, substantially agreed on the reasonableness of the South Australian approach. I think their concern had been that we had gone closer to some of the other states which are much more punitive on the supermarkets.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): I have you down as having spoken three times on this clause, member for Bragg.

Mr BATTY: I have a final supplementary, sir.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Okay, a quick point of clarification maybe.

Mr BATTY: Just to clarify, after speaking with SAIR after receiving that letter, did the minister make any changes to the bill now before the house, or did simply having the conversation allay some of their concerns in your view?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, we didn't, because the conversation was based on the bill in front of them, and looking through the clauses and the way in which we expected it to work.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Mr BATTY: This is an amendment of section 30—Nuisance and litter abatement notices. I understand that this is only required if a supermarket, for example, might be issued with a notice from a council or you as the minister. There are already litter abatement notice provisions in the act and my understanding of this clause is that it essentially expands them. Can you confirm that my understanding is correct, and also whether the minister has issued a notice already under the current act with respect to supermarket trolleys?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The substantial difference is that currently the area of littering that is captured by the current legislation is only 100 metres from the door of the supermarket, whichever one it might be, and this extends it to a kilometre. So it extends the range of the location. It also adds a number of ways in which the councils cannot force the business to respond, so they cannot force geo-locking or coin operation, and that was done in response to concerns that we were being overly onerous on shopping centre owners.

Mr BATTY: This particular new section will only apply to businesses that have more than 20 shopping trolleys. Why? Also, was a similar threshold ever considered for the collection and identification requirements we were talking about earlier and, if not, why not?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The trigger of having 20 was suggested by the Small Business Commissioner in order to be more reasonable with small businesses. The distinction and the reason it has not applied to simply having trolleys needing to have an obligation to put contact details and to go and pick it up if told it is there, is that that really ought to be the responsibility of someone who offers trolleys, because they can individually become a nuisance. What we are talking about in this section and the reason the trigger has then been put in is that it is a far more substantial and potentially burdensome response that is required. A plan has to be developed, and a very small business is going to struggle to do that. The larger supermarkets will have people who are capable of doing that or they can bring people in to do that should it be necessary.

Mr BATTY: Just on that answer, I think we have already established that the previous provisions we are talking about might also be burdensome. We have gone to extreme examples—obviously having far more than 20 trolleys. I just wondered whether any thought had been given perhaps to at least tiered penalties on the size of the business being operated or anything like that.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is hard for a business which has fewer than 20 trolleys to have 500 ending up in a lake, but I take the more general point. No, the tiered penalties have not applied. They are very rarely used, and it was not suggested by anyone, including the Small Business Commissioner, as being necessary. I would hope that we do not have to impose penalties. I would hope that this works.

Clause passed.

Clauses 16 to 18 passed.

Schedule 1.

Mr COWDREY: This question relates to perhaps a matter of interest, just to provide some clarity in regard to exactly where these issues should be reported in the future. There does appear to be, for those of us dealing with these sorts of complaints—our electorate officers—a level of confusion in regard to who has responsibility for enforcing noise complaints from licensed premises, whether that is something that is captured by nuisance laws from the EPA or whether that is something that is determined under the Liquor Licensing Act. I am just keen to have some guidance from the minister in regard to the sections that she has set out there about the appropriateness and where noise complaints from licensed venues should be best made, and who is best positioned to provide outcomes for aggrieved residents.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I understand it, there has been a degree of confusion where councils have been referring all noise nuisance complaints associated with a licensed premises to the liquor licensing commissioner, whereas, in fact, if it is from an air conditioner, if it is a supermarket air conditioner, it is council, but if it is a licensed premises air conditioner then somehow they will be referred off to the liquor licensing.

What we have done here is clarify what it is in terms of nuisance that properly belongs to the liquor licensing commissioner and that is noise and behaviour associated with the fact that it is a liquor licensed premises rather than other elements of the fabric such as light or air conditioning.

This is on request of the commissioner that we use this opportunity to have much more clarity in the noise act so that councils can no longer say, 'Oh no, if that's a pub, all of that goes to the commissioner,' when in fact elements of the complaint might very properly belong to council consistent with how they would treat any other business. I get the sense I have made it less—

Mr COWDREY: I think you potentially have. The issue that I am particularly referencing is the collection of used bottles. It could be said that that activity would not be taking place but for it being a licensed premises, or does that sit with the council's responsibility of picking up recycling? It probably is not the best example, but that is the one I am particularly referencing.

While you ponder that example, the other question I have in regard to this section is in relation to legislation we had before the house without referencing the debate itself in regard to an establishment, the Crown and Anchor. Will this section of the liquor licensing law in regard to complaints around noise emanating from a licensed premises be relevant for the Crown and Anchor Hotel moving forward?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The way I will be describing this is that anything associated with entertainment and crowd noise is liquor licence and anything else belongs to the council. The movement of bottles is something that could occur if it were a supermarket equally and therefore belongs properly to the council and this provides that level of clarity.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (20:28): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

In saying that, not only do I, as usual, thank everybody who has contributed, but I would particularly like to thank Mr Steven Mudge, who is leaving the EPA very shortly, and I am glad that we have been able to get this bill through at least this chamber before his departure.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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