HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (WASTE COLLECTION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 June 2009. Page 2495.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (21:02): I rise to indicate that the Liberal Party supports the bill before us, moved by the Hon. Mr Hood. We will propose amendments, but our amendments are purely designed to underscore the spirit of what we understand the Hon. Mr Hood seeks to achieve. South Australia's Waste Strategy 2005 to 2010 sets the following target for municipal solid waste:

By 2010, 75 per cent of all material presented at the kerbside is recycled (if food waste is included).

I understand that the rate in 2007 was estimated at 57 per cent. In 2007, Zero Waste, a state government agency, commissioned a consultant, Mr John Comrie, to prepare a report entitled 'Business Case for Councils to Undertake Co-Collection of Food Waste with Garden Organics'. The report found that, where a council already has a three bin system with fortnightly collection of garden organics, it is estimated that the council would save between $1 and $4 per household per annum by introducing co-collection of food waste and garden organics and reducing the frequency of the residual waste collection service to fortnightly.

In light of the subsequent debate, I will highlight some references in Mr Comrie's report. At page 11, discussing the results of the survey of councils, Mr Comrie's report states:

Disposable nappies in the waste stream were identified as a specific issue that is likely to generate widespread concerns if residual waste was collected fortnightly. Legislative provisions which have been interpreted to effectively require councils to collect residual waste weekly would need to be modified to enable fortnightly collections...

On page 20, in relation to the cost benefit analysis, Mr Comrie's report states:

The cost of the co-collection of domestic food waste and garden organics with the frequency of the 140 litre MGB waste collection reduced from weekly to fortnightly...The consultants have evaluated the opportunity to reduce the frequency of the residual waste collection...

Mr Comrie then discusses the issue of disposable nappies, and then specifically refers to Public and Environmental Health (General) Regulation 4(2), and states:

Many councils are likely to want this regulation reviewed and in probability varied before considering implementation of a fortnightly residual waste collection service.

On page 24, in relation to implementation issues, Mr Comrie's report states:

Several issues...should be pursued to facilitate the introduction of a co-collection of domestic food waste with garden organics.

Under the heading 'Statutory Compliance' the report states:

ZWSA—

which, I understand, stands for Zero Waste South Australia—

should initiate a review to consider removing regulatory barriers to the introduction of a fortnightly food waste/garden organics co-collection system by councils.

So, the question before the council is: why did Zero Waste, having been repeatedly warned of this issue in the Comrie report, choose to proceed without having the issue addressed? Why was not the regulation changed? Perhaps Zero Waste and the government were of the view that they would not be able to get it through the parliament, so they would just ignore it. I find that extremely disturbing. Zero Waste cannot claim ignorance of the law, even if it were an excuse. Apparently we are faced with wilful blindness and ignoring of the law by a government authority.

In January 2006, Zero Waste invited councils to apply for funds to be part of a Zero Waste food waste trial, which involved separating food waste from general waste and putting it in the green waste stream. As part of this trial, councils were invited to trial fortnightly collection of general waste. In July 2008, the government announced that 10 councils would be receiving state government funding to participate in the trial. The minister indicated that four of those councils would be trialling fortnightly collection. Independently, the Prospect council indicated that it will tender for a fortnightly collection to commence in July 2010, and I understand that the council is not proposing to undertake a trial.

In February, Grace Portolesi, the Labor member for Hartley, criticised fortnightly waste collections, apparently unaware that her local council was part of a state government trial. Following the attacks from Ms Portolesi, the Campbelltown council stopped trialling fortnightly collection. The Mayor of Campbelltown, Simon Brewer, said the council had signed on to the scheme in good faith but was now backing away because it was left unsupported by the government. Mr Brewer is reported as saying:

My council understands the waste problems and saw this as an opportunity to help the government achieve their clearly stated goal of reducing waste to landfill. Unfortunately we were left unsupported by the government and have largely worn their criticism.

It was well put by Mayor Brewer. The Rann government approach to partnership with local government is: we will take the credit for the good news; you can take the rap for the bad news. Labor MPs and ministers are not talking to each other, just as they are not talking to the community.

In this context, I pay tribute to the work of Leon Byner of radio station FIVEaa: he has been a champion for engaging the community on this issue. Yet, the ministers continue to keep their heads down. To give due respect, minister Weatherill has gone on the public record twice to address the environmental advantages alleged for this trial but repeatedly refuses to engage on the health concerns. My understanding, from representations from constituents, is that overwhelmingly there are health concerns, including from people who are heavily committed to environmental objectives in our community.

Another minister responsible is minister Gago, the Minister for Local Government. She was the minister who originated the trial at the beginning of last year. I suppose at least we can give her credit for having been willing to answer a question in this place in which she espoused the virtues of the trial, again from an environmental perspective, completely ignoring the health implications. I cannot say the Minister for Health, minister Hill, has even put his head over the parapet on this one. However, there are glimmers of sanity permeating the dense cloud of the Labor caucus. The Treasurer was recently asked by Leon Byner of his view of fortnightly collections. Mr Foley said:

It's dopey. I mean, you know, with all due respect, what do we have councils for? You know, the prime consideration is they pick up rubbish.

Whilst I share the Treasurer's scepticism about fortnightly collections, I certainly do not associate myself with the degradation of local government that the Treasurer espoused and we so often see from this government.

In addressing the key themes raised by the Hon. Mr Hood's bill, I propose to address them in three areas: first of all, environmental concerns; secondly, public environmental health concerns; and, thirdly, the position relating to the rule of law. In relation to environmental issues, the Liberal Party is committed to reducing waste. We are even open to initiatives to deal with food waste, initiatives which explore the effectiveness of reducing waste to landfill.

Unfortunately, fortnightly collection of residual waste is being promoted as though it were an inherent component in strategies to deal with food waste. That is not true. Fortnightly collection of residual waste is not implicit in strategies to deal with food waste. Secondly, I fear that the insensitivity to community concerns will actually undermine community support for broader waste initiatives. Let me quote from a person who wrote to me on my concerns:

Dear Stephen,

My husband and I strongly oppose fortnightly collection of rubbish by local councils. We are keen composters, but following advice from garden experts, we do not put any meat, seafood or dairy waste products in our compost bins, to avoid attracting rodents. Meat waste, such as fat and bones, and seafood waste, such as cockle shells, crab, prawn and lobster shells, are highly putrescent materials which attract not only rodents, but also flies and other animal pests.

People also dispose of used cat litter, dog faeces, soiled baby nappies and female sanitary products in their rubbish bins. The idea that all these highly insanitary wastes can be left in rubbish bins for up to a fortnight, in our climate, when maximum temperatures for several months of the year are in the 30s and 40s, is insane.

With the proliferation of medium and high density housing, the risk of offensive smells, if nothing else, should be enough to justify weekly collection of household rubbish. The proliferation of new courtyard homes and homettes being built on minimal size allotments means that people have to keep their rubbish bins in very close proximity to their neighbours.

Regards—

and the person's name was supplied. The second thing that I would like to address relates to public and environmental health. Food waste trials take food waste out of the general waste scheme. Fortnightly waste collection is predicated on the assumption that the residual waste will be so little that it can be collected fortnightly. Depending on the circumstances of the household, the residual waste may not be benign and through the removal of food waste it becomes less diluted.

I would like to illustrate some of the material that can be included in this residual waste stream. For example, young families may be placing nappies in the stream; people with a disability and the elderly may be placing incontinence aids; the sick may be placing home care medical waste; women might be placing personal hygiene products; and people with pets may be placing animal waste and kitty litter.

A number of concerns have been expressed to me relating to the proliferation of bins to support waste collection, which means that people, particularly in intensive developments, are finding it difficult to store their bins within common areas. Some are leaving their bins on the kerbside between collections, which increases the public health risk.

The weekly collection of insanitary waste is not only common sense but also good public health practice. As such, it is enshrined in our public and environmental health regulations. We will not countenance fortnightly waste collection in the absence of clear proof that it does not represent a health risk to the community. In March, the opposition raised concerns that fortnightly waste collection is contrary to the Public and Environmental Health (General) Regulations, clause 4(2), which provides:

The owner of premises must take reasonable steps to ensure that refuse on the premises that is capable of causing an insanitary condition is disposed of as often as may be appropriate in view of the nature of the refuse, but in any event at least once a week.

The maximum penalty under that clause is $1,000. By failing to collect rubbish weekly, councils are putting owners and occupiers at risk of breaching the public and environmental health regulations. Section 15(1) of the Public and Environmental Health Act 1987 provides that, if premises are in an insanitary condition, the local council may, by notice in writing, require an owner, or any other person who is apparently responsible for causing the insanitary condition, to take action. Section 16(1) provides:

If premises are in an insanitary condition, any person who is responsible for causing the condition or allowing the condition to occur is guilty of an offence.

I put to this council that, under sections 15 and 16, the councils themselves could well be in breach of the act because, by not providing a weekly waste collection, they are causing householders to be in a situation where they can be in breach of the act. At a local level, the public and environmental health regulations and act are enforced by the council. The council is the relevant authority, but the council is in a position where it could be causing an insanitary condition. Clearly, there is a conflict of interest.

The opposition has seen Zero Waste correspondence asserting that the Public Environmental Health Council is willing for food waste trials to proceed but, when one looks at the correspondence more closely, Zero Waste apparently asked only about the food waste aspects of the trial. The correspondence does not deal with residual waste. I reiterate that our concern is particularly with the management of residual waste. If you ask only half the question, don't be surprised if you get only half the answer.

The third theme that I would like to address is the Liberal opposition's concern with the way the law and the regulations are being treated. We believe that the public and environmental health laws should be complied with and enforced. Call me old-fashioned, but I think that those who make the laws should not break the laws. It is a bit rich to expect our citizens and ratepayers to abide by the laws of our parliament and the by-laws of our councils when we ignore them when it suits us.

The bill put forward by the Hon. Mr Hood has become necessary to highlight the failure of the government to enforce public and environmental health regulations. Fortnightly waste collection put residents and councils in breach of the regulations, which require regular weekly waste removal. The government should never have implemented this trial knowing that it could be in breach of the law. As I highlighted from Mr Comrie's report, it was warned time and time again. In this context, I congratulate the Hon. Dennis Hood on bringing the bill before the council.

Considering that the government has evacuated the field, the Local Government Association has found it necessary to write to members on at least two occasions. I would like now to quote from a copy of a letter provided to me by the association. It is primarily a letter addressing the Hon. Mr Hood's bill and states, in part:

If enacted, the bill will remove the opportunity for communities and councils to democratically decide what level of waste collection is appropriate for their community based on an environmental basis.

I find that to be a disappointing comment, because democratic mandates are not a licence to disregard the law. Just because you have a local government mandate to deal with local government issues does not mean that you have a licence to ignore state legislation dealing with public and environmental health. The local government letter only says that they should deal with things on an environmental basis. I think their communities would also expect them to be dealing with health issues. The letter further states:

As you are aware the public debate around the issues emerging from the food waste trials included reference to the regulations under the Public and Environmental Health Act. Given that the Government is currently undertaking a major review of this Act it may be more appropriate for Parliament to consider the matters raised in the current Bill in that review.

Again, I regard that comment as extraordinary. If we know that an act is to be reviewed, apparently, we can ignore it. Considering the concerns of members, for example, in relation to how long it took to deal with the equal opportunity bill, are we really suggesting that all employers and providers of services should have ignored that legislation for the 15 or 20 years (or whatever it was) that we were reviewing it? Of course not. A law should be observed and obeyed until it is changed. It is presumptuous to presume that the parliament will change a law or will allow a regulation being reviewed and proposed to be amended to stand.

The Liberal amendments that I have tabled propose to change the bill to more closely reflect the public and environmental health regulations to highlight our concerns about health and the need for due regard to laws. I note that the Local Government Association has distributed advice to members not to support my amendments. I would like to read that memorandum in full. The document states:

The LGA has considered the amendments to the proposed Local Government (Waste Collection) Amendment Bill 2009 by the Hon. Stephen Wade MLC. The LGA provides the following comments in relation to the specific amendments proposed:

the amendments introduce the term 'insanitary condition' and this not defined;

the word 'usually' is vague and left to interpretation; and

the word 'capable' in relation to an 'insanitary condition' is vague and left to interpretation.

Attention is also drawn to the LGA's letter to the Hon Dennis Hood MLC of 12 June 2009 (provided to all key Members earlier this week) highlighting concerns with the Bill that continue to not be addressed by the amendments.

Regards, Wendy Campana, Executive Director

In the context of that note I refer members to the Public and Environmental Health (General) Regulations 2006. Two of the three terms the LGA is having trouble with are already used in the regulations. I remind members of the phrase, 'The owner of premises must take reasonable steps to ensure that refuse on the premises that is capable of causing an insanitary condition is disposed of as often', and so on.

If the LGA and its members are not able to understand and apply the phrase 'capable of causing an insanitary condition' in this amendment I fail to understand how they are currently applying the Public and Environmental Health (General) Regulations. Under section 12 of the Public and Environmental Health Act, if a council fails to discharge its duties the Public and Environmental Health Council can withdraw those powers.

In relation to the government position, I stress that my beef is not primarily with the LGA; it is with the government's trial. It is the government's trial; it is the government's regulation. We need to know the Rann government's position. After all, silence means consent. We can only assume that the Rann government wants fortnightly collections and that it intends in due course that fortnightly collections will be rolled out through Adelaide. The government's secrecy raises concerns that this policy is driven more by costs than by common sense.

I find that often people do not argue their case if the argument is not with them. If it was arguable on environmental and health grounds, I think we would have had the argument. In this context, I would congratulate elected members such as Ashley Dixon from Prospect council, who has been willing to engage in the public debate. Ashley strongly supports fortnightly waste collections and he has gone out publicly in the media and privately meeting with members such as me to argue his case.

He was motivated initially by his concern to reduce waste, but I found him more than willing to discuss the health and cost implications, and so forth. I would like to see some of our more highly paid elected representatives taking their responsibility for public debate more seriously. If the government wants to introduce fortnightly collection, amend the regulations and let us have the debate.

I note that we are not the only jurisdiction having this debate. In the United Kingdom in recent years there have been significant numbers of councils that have been either trialling or implementing fortnightly waste collection, and it has also become a political issue there. In September 2008 the United Kingdom Conservative Party announced that it would be making its push to maintain weekly collections at the next British general election.

The Liberal Party is also happy to take this issue to the people. The choice will be clear: vote Liberal for weekly, Labor for fortnightly. As far as the Liberal opposition is concerned, we can only say: bring it on.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:25): The Greens strongly oppose this bill, and we do so on both practical and philosophical grounds. We see that this bill sets back the cause of waste minimisation and resource recovery. Some of the commentary in the media around this bill has painted it as simply a cynical exercise in providing fewer services to the community in order to save money. I would say that if I accepted that position, that it was a cynical exercise, then the honourable member's bill has some merit, but I do not see it that way at all and, as a result, we oppose the bill.

What we need to do is get back to first principles. We need to ask ourselves the question of what we need in the way of waste collection and what we want in the way of waste collection, because those two things are not necessarily the same. For some people, in an ideal world, there would be daily waste collection. Some people might want a continuously moving conveyor belt past their house so that every item of waste can be disposed of instantly. We are talking about striking a balance. We have to weigh up cost, we have to weigh up safety—safety for the community and for people engaged in the rubbish industry—and we need to consider the environment.

What we need is a system that removes waste safely, and that does not necessarily mean removing it weekly. Our overwhelming priority must be to reduce, to the maximum extent possible, the amount of waste going to landfill. One of the myths that we need to overcome in the debate about waste is the idea that, when we throw something away, it goes away. But, clearly, there is no 'away'. Unless we start shooting our rubbish into space in rockets, there is no 'away'. We have to deal with it.

Ideally, we deal with it by reusing it; if we cannot reuse it, we can recycle it; and, ahead of all those things, of course, we should be reducing the amount of waste we generate, in any event. There will always be some residual waste that has no way of being recycled, and we need to deal with that but, again, that does not necessarily mean weekly collection of that waste.

Landfill is incredibly expensive and incredibly wasteful of resources. Landfill close to Adelaide is now pretty much full, and our rubbish trucks are driving further out of the metropolis in order to dump their loads. These landfills, and the constant stream of trucks that accompany them, are having a negative impact on local communities on the outskirts of Adelaide.

In many ways, this bill is a reaction to a trial and, as I understand it, these trials are by no means complete. Trials are, of course, a very useful way of finding out whether something works—finding out what the pitfalls might be and what improvements might be needed—yet what we see in this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to the fairly early days of a number of trials.

There has also been a fair bit of misinformation in relation to this issue, and that misinformation is around both the local experience and even international experience. If we look locally, we see that councils such as Mallala have been successfully providing a fortnightly residual waste collection without major issues, and certainly without hysteria, and has been doing so for many years.

In terms of the trials in the metropolitan area, let us look at some of the preliminary findings. I refer to the East Torrens Messenger of 5 April, where, in the regular column provided by the City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters, under the heading 'Food Waste Trial', it states:

Participants in the food waste trial have diverted a large amount of kitchen waste away from landfill through disposing organic matter in the green wheelie bin. In the St Peters' trial, 72 per cent of waste is being diverted on average every fortnight, up from 57 per cent before the trial. In Kensington the figure is 74 per cent, up from 63 per cent. Council will decide the trials' future in June 2009.

What those figures also describe is that it is not just food waste that is now being diverted from landfill. The experience of a trial of food waste diversion has resulted in other forms of waste being diverted. We find that other recyclables are being diverted from landfill. The impact on the total waste stream is above and beyond just that component that relates to food waste. Why? Because attitudes are changing, because people start to look at the whole of their waste stream through different eyes and they change their behaviour accordingly.

The experience in Norwood Payneham and St Peters has been different to that of the experience in Athelstone, where there is a food trial going on as well. But Athelstone has maintained its weekly residual rubbish service, and so the amount of total diversions is still stuck at around 60 per cent. It is certainly less than that in the St Peters trial area where, as I said, it is 72 per cent, or Kensington where it is 74 per cent. In terms of the experience interstate, Coffs Harbour, for example, in 2004 undertook a similar food waste trial. A survey of residents was conducted after the trial was completed and it came up with the following results: overall, 63 per cent of respondents said that they liked the trial system better than their previous system, and an additional 19 per cent thought the trial system was neither better nor worse than the current system.

So, an overwhelming majority of people were supportive or neutral, but the vast bulk (more than half) were supportive; 72 per cent believed that organics should be collected weekly, while only 22 per cent believed that organics should be collected fortnightly. That component of the trial was well accepted—the weekly collection of organics. Also, 66 per cent (two-thirds) believed that garbage, or what I am calling the residual waste, should be collected fortnightly, and only 34 per cent believed that that garbage should be collected weekly.

The ratio was two-thirds in favour of fortnight to one-third in favour of weekly in Coffs Harbour. Clearly, a majority of residents expressed a preference for weekly collection of their organics and fortnightly collection of their general rubbish. It was evident to some residents that removal of putrescible waste from the residual waste stream resulted in a non-odorous garbage bin. In other words, their bin did not smell as bad because it did not have that putrescible food waste in it. The debate here in South Australia is that the trials in the United Kingdom were a failure.

My understanding is that about 50 per cent of councils across the United Kingdom have already shifted to a fortnightly residual waste collection service, and that rate has been consistent over the past 12 months, or so, but generally it had been increasing in time until then. In the vast majority of councils it has worked well, and the small number that had problems were primarily those that had trouble getting rid of their green waste, and that was often related to local factors. Anyone who has been to the UK would be aware of this—very narrow streets, difficulty of trucks getting access and most councils still using an old style rear entry truck with two manual rubbish handlers standing on the back.

Certainly, in South Australia we have much better technology and, as a result, we have much less contamination. In fact, it should be a matter of some celebration to South Australians that our levels of cross-contamination in our rubbish stream are very low. One of the reasons for that is that we have developed a culture in this state of recycling. The container deposit legislation has been an important part of that culture. In economic terms a strong market has developed for green waste, and we know that there are great opportunities for jobs and wealth creation out of diverting that material from landfill. In fact, we should stop calling it green waste and start calling it a green resource.

A couple of other furphies have dominated the debate. The focus has been on nappies, medical waste, sanitary products, and the like. When we talk about disposal or throw-away nappies, for example, we are talking about a relatively small percentage of households. We are looking at between 4 per cent and 5 per cent of households at any one time. Many of those people—and we will know this from trials—would be happy with fortnightly collections.

There will be people who have special needs, and part of the success of these trials and any mechanisms put in place as a result will be how we deal with people with special needs. It makes no sense for us as a community to be sending trucks trawling through every street in an entire suburb every week if the real need is to service only a very small proportion of households who actually need that level of service; and let us say that it is likely to be less than 5 per cent. There are other ways—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Wade says that it is only nappies. Well, we could include colostomy bags in that.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Dead cats.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I don't know how many members are throwing their dead cats into wheelie bins; most of them are giving them a decent dispatch, with a hole in the ground in the backyard and a religious symbol over the top.

A small proportion of people would need that level of service. Councils usually operate in an area most days of the week and suburbs are divided into different days for collection. It might be that for houses with special needs the trucks could be diverted for extra collections. There are other ways in which it could be done, as well. We could have a system where councils and households negotiate on a case-by-case basis. That would make a great deal more sense than providing an overkill service to every single house in the municipality.

We also need to get serious about our expectations in relation to waste. Let us remember that it was not very long ago that the waste disposal system consisted of two metal rubbish bins of 55 litres capacity each—so 110 litres—for everything.

The Hon. David Winderlich interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Mr Winderlich reminds me that it used to one 55 litre bin for everything—tins, glass containers and general waste. Everything had to go into those bins. In most places we are now serviced by a weekly 120 or 140 litre residual waste service, along a fortnightly 240 litre recycling bin and fortnightly 240 litre green organics bin. The vast majority of people are getting 360 to 380 litres per week of collection compared with either 55 or 110 litres.

The Hon. David Winderlich: But smaller households.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am reminded by interjection that we now have smaller households. The average household size has decreased significantly over the past 20 or 30 years. The way in which we are heading is unsustainable, and if our direction is to be reducing waste to landfill, it makes no sense to be forever increasing the capacity of these bins.

Let us look at what is in the rubbish. The average general waste bin—that is, the smaller of the wheelie bins—generally holds around 12 kilograms by weight of rubbish. On average, only 7½ kilograms of those 12 kilograms is used. In other words, on average, those bins are filled to 63 per cent of capacity. When you factor in that about 44 per cent of that waste is food waste that can be diverted to an organics stream, you find that there is, on average, more than enough capacity to deal with fortnightly collections.

We also need to be careful not to blame households for the increase in waste. One thing that previous generations did not have was the massive volumes of polystyrene foam, whether it is the little nuggets that seem to surround every appliance or whether it is the great blocks of white foam that accompany every piece of electrical equipment, they are not the responsibility of householders. We need to start looking at sheeting home responsibility to the producers of products to take some responsibility for the waste that they create.

The Greens strongly support policies that would result in a drastic reduction in the amount of packaging. I am not talking about voluntary measures. I think we need to head in the direction that countries like Germany have taken; that is, they make it a responsibility of the manufacturer to take responsibility for the waste that they are generating.

The Local Government Association (as has been pointed out by the Hon. Stephen Wade) has written to the Hon. Dennis Hood and circulated copies to all members. They point out that the trials are yet to be finalised—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: It's still illegal.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —and that it is premature to be forming a considered position on the outcomes and merits of different collection methods and waste collection frequencies whilst those trials are underway. They also point out some difficulties with the definition of 'waste'. They point out that waste can include construction and demolition waste, commercial and industrial waste, as well as municipal waste. So, there is a difficulty in simply referring in the bill to 'waste'.

I will now respond to an interjection to which I did not respond a few seconds ago. The Hon. Stephen Wade refers to the illegality (as he calls it) of current arrangements. One thing that I for my sins have done in the past is been a lecturer in public health law at Flinders University, and I had to teach the Public and Environmental Health Act. We spent at least a class on section 15 of the Public and Environmental Health Act in relation to insanitary conditions. One of the things that I got to do was to read all the cases that were decided by the Public and Environmental Health Council in relation to section 15 and insanitary conditions. What you found was that no-one was prosecuted for having a bin full of rubbish in front of their premises for two weeks.

All the actions—and they were often civil rather than criminal—related to what I would call mental health associated hoarding cases. They are the cases that the current affairs shows love. The person has a house so full of rubbish that you cannot even get in the front door. There are pizza boxes and half empty milk containers, and there is squalor. The local councils are put in the position of working with these people to help clean up their premises. If they cannot, then there are provisions for the council to go in, clean it up and charge the expense to the householder. Reading all these cases over many years, I found they were overwhelmingly mental health related, and they were serious cases of vermin and rats breeding and insanitary conditions that affected entire neighbour hoods. Those laws were applied in a very sensible way and I can see no reason for that to change.

Part of the basis of these laws, which were written over 20 years ago, was around occupational health and safety issues for workers in the waste collection industry. Members may remember that when these public and environmental health rules were being written we basically had a situation in which all waste ended up in one bin. It was collected by garbage workers who would physically lift up the bins on to their shoulders, and the lids would fall off and they would manually empty them into the back of trucks. There would be a combination of vacuum cleaner bag contents, fish heads, and whatever, and there were genuine occupational health and safety issues for workers.

We now have a far different system of waste storage and collection. Wheelie bins are far less prone to access by vermin, they do not get knocked over by dogs in the street as they used to, and they are not manually handled by rubbish workers but are picked up by automated side-arms connected to trucks, and they are well sealed. It is a far cry from the old days of manual collection.

In relation to the Liberal amendments, which I understand we will discuss in more detail in the committee stage—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: They have been withdrawn.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In that case I will not even talk about them; I will go straight to my conclusion. If we are serious about our goals to reduce waste then we need to change the way we do things. Our current way is unsustainable and is more expensive than it needs to be. We have to be innovative, and if there were a legal insistence on a weekly service that would prevent councils from being able to invest in other waste services. That could include more food waste trials, and there are difficulties with electronic waste, which we know is an increasingly insidious form of waste causing problems in landfills with leaching. We need to recycle TV screens and computers; we should not put them in landfill.

We also need more innovation in the area of hazardous waste. I bet I am not the only person here who has a shed full of old tins of paint; however, for some strange reason I have never been in the vicinity of Dry Creek on the first Tuesday of the month between the hours of nine and 11 in the morning—or whenever it is that they take that stuff. So it stays in my shed. We do need better systems for the collection of hazardous waste. Whilst we are at it, we also need to be more innovative in relation to hard rubbish.

In summary, we need to change our current, totally unsustainable, linear approach to waste where we buy, use and throw out—and pretend it goes away. It is costing us a fortune, and we can do better. We can be smarter. I do not want us to put into legislation measures that stand in the way of the future innovation we need.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (21:48): I will not be too long on this. I thank the Hon. Mark Parnell for his detailed information regarding the success so far of the trials of the weekly collections. I also oppose this bill, and my main reason for that is that, as I understand it, we are still in the middle of trials. I do not believe it is good practice or good policy to bring in legislation midway through trials, before we have had time to collect the data from those trials and then arrive at a conclusion. It is not good practice to cut trials short because we often find that the end result is unsatisfactory.

I want to concentrate on one issue that might seem a little strange—disposable nappies. It is not that long ago that I was changing nappies, and I am sure that most females in the chamber who have been mothers and who are my age or a little older are confused about why disposable nappies have become such a necessary item. I for one cannot comprehend people being in a position to keep their babies in disposable nappies all the time. We used them in emergencies, such as when we were going out somewhere, but the rest of the time we used cloth nappies. I am a bit of a greenie at heart.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Well, if you are worried about a stinky bin, and if you must use disposable nappies, you can put a nappy liner in the disposable nappy and, when it is soiled, pull out the nappy liner, flush it down the toilet and away you go. I think as consumers—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: It will end up in the desal.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: One problem at a time! As consumers, I think we have become very lazy. As the Hon. Mark Parnell said, we have bought into, 'Buy it, use it, throw it away,' and it is catching up with us. For me, disposable nappies are a real irk on the environment because they create such unnecessary waste. Be it judgmental, but I think that mothers are terribly lazy if they use disposable nappies all the time. There are alternatives, and they are easy to look after—and I did it with four kids in nappies. You washed the nappies, hung them out, dried them and used them again, and the disposable nappy was a luxury you used only if you were going out somewhere or whatever.

As to prawn shells that will stink in bins, I think most people who live in this climate, where it is pleasant to eat prawns and have cold beer, or whatever it is we do over the summer months, know that you wrap the prawn shells in paper, stick them in your freezer and wait for collection day to put them in the bin; anybody who does not do that has rocks in their head because it is common practice now.

Part of the issue of the fortnightly collection of rubbish is that it requires individuals to take a level of responsibility for their plot of earth and manage it in the best way possible. We see waste and the environment as global issues, and I honestly believe that individuals living in the community have lost the motivation to take that personal responsibility because they see all these problems as so large.

However, if we all got back to basics and looked after and managed our own plot of ground the best way possible—by using, re-using, recycling and being sensible about how we manage our household—it would have a good impact on the amount of rubbish that is thrown out and the responsibility of councils to dispose of it and find areas where they can continually extend landfill.

All in all, let us wait for the trial to finish and see the results. We have seen the statistics the Hon. Mark Parnell presented about how, over time, people who have adjusted to change have adjusted favourably. We have talked about educating the community in the better management of their household and plot of ground. Let us move forward with this sensibly, rather than having a knee-jerk reaction and caving into what seems to me to be media pressure.

I have a great deal of admiration for Leon Byner and how he runs his shows on certain issues, but this particular one where there was talk about making rubbish the election issue for 2010, to me, was a bit far-fetched. I think we have far greater problems than whether we collect rubbish weekly or fortnightly for the 2010 election. I would hate to see this place make a decision based on media pressure rather than on good practice and common sense.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (21:56): I am with the Hon. Ms Bressington on this. I remember the days when the Stork nappy service would come along and take away our cloth nappies. I do not see why that process cannot be reinstated. I also congratulate the Hon. Mr Wade for indicating to the government at least that he will be withdrawing his amendments to the Hon. Mr Hood's bill.

I cannot let the opportunity pass without commenting that, in fact, if it had been the government that had dropped amendments on this council barely 24 hours ago, expecting the debate to proceed, there would be howls of outrage from the other side of the benches—feigned outrage, probably, in most respects—but outrage nonetheless that we have not given them enough time to consider the amendments and make a considered response.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Ms Lensink is out of order. The Hon. Mr Hunter has the call.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am pleased that the Hon. Mr Wade saw fit to withdraw his amendments or, indeed, if that was not his motivating factor, it may well have been consideration of the letter from the LGA on his amendments which I think he has quoted from. I have a copy of this letter, which states:

The LGA has considered the amendments to the proposed Local Government (Waste Collection) Amendment Bill 2009 by the Hon. Stephen Wade MLC. The LGA provides the following comments in relation to the specific amendments proposed:

the amendments introduce the term 'insanitary condition' and this is not defined;

the word 'usually' is vague and left to interpretation; and

the word 'capable' in relation to 'insanitary condition' is vague and left to interpretation.

Attention is also drawn to the LGA's letter to the Hon. Dennis Hood MLC to which I also think the Hon. Mr Wade made some reference in highlighting concerns with this bill that continue not to be addressed by the amendments.

So, if it was not the good sense to withdraw the amendments on the basis of an inadequate period of consultation for the government so that I can comment with some degree of confidence on those amendments, perhaps it was the comments from the LGA that motivated him to do so. However, whatever the conditions are, I welcome it.

It will not surprise you, sir, to know that the government does not support the Hon. Dennis Hood's bill. The bill does not define what it means by the term 'waste'. The bill suggests that waste should be collected weekly, but the bill does not say what type of waste should be collected weekly or, alternatively, whether all waste should be collected weekly.

It would seem to be consistent with this bill if green waste were to be collected one week, recyclables the following week, and residual wastes in the third week. That schedule would arguably constitute a weekly collection of waste, but I do not believe that is the honourable member's intention.

On the other hand, if the honourable member is trying to suggest that all wastes should be picked up every week, that will place an enormous additional burden on ratepayers. Surely, that is not his consideration on this bill. Neither of the interpretations is desirable, so I say the honourable member's bill must fail on its own terms.

However, let me move on and deal with the matter of rubbish collection. As the honourable member knows, the state government is not responsible for the operational decisions of councils. Indeed, under the Local Government Act, it is a matter for each council to decide annually, in consultation with its ratepayers, what services it will provide and how those services are to be funded.

This is particularly so with respect to rubbish collection. Rubbish collection, including how often rubbish is collected, is a decision that councils need to make in consultation with their ratepayers. It is essentially a matter for councils. As the President of the Local Government Association, Felicity-ann Lewis, put it only last week, councils are probably best known for rubbish. I will not draw any inferences whatsoever from that statement.

Of course, councils must ensure that they consult adequately with their ratepayers. In respect of rubbish collection, it is clear from recent community and media discussions that councils would find it difficult to persuade their ratepayers of the merits of any change to the frequency of rubbish collection—at least, at this stage.

But this is no reason for us to legislate over the top of them; rather, it is a powerful reason for leaving it to council to determine with their ratepayers about what is appropriate for their area. If they cannot take their ratepayers with them, it just will not happen. If the state government is expected to legislate every time councils are determined to change some aspect of their service delivery, there will be no point in having local governments at all.

On the contrary, we in government believe that there is a legitimate place for local government, and that place is as another tier of government. The legislative scheme under which councils operate is designed to make councils accountable for their decisions regarding service delivery. Just as with other levels of government, councils are accountable to their voters for their decisions on taxes, spending and services. The ratepayers get to elect their council members every four years, unlike the Legislative Council.

It would be contrary to these democratic principles to have the state government legislate every time councils do something contentious. Having a dialogue with the local government authority concerned often works wonders, and that should be the first port of call. That is not to say that councils are not required to comply with a range of legislative requirements, including public health regulations, because, of course, they are. It is obviously the role of the state government to ensure that appropriate standards of public health are maintained.

The honourable member, in his second reading speech, made reference to regulation 4(2) of the Public and Environmental Health (General) Regulations 2006. This regulation creates an offence of failing to deal with refuse 'that is capable of causing an insanitary condition'. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that public health is not compromised by waste management practices. This is the proper role of state government in this rubbish collection debate, and that is it. No-one seems to be suggesting those regulations are somehow inadequate; indeed, far from it. The honourable member himself has stated that he is of the opinion that the regulation need not be changed. It appears that members are of the view that we have got the regulations right, and of course we have.

Much has been made of food waste trials in relation to this issue. The purpose of these trials is to work out the issues associated with removing food waste from our bins, thereby reducing our waste to landfill. I presume members in this place agree that would be a good thing. I point out that only a small minority of participating councils (from memory, three councils) have trialled fortnightly collection of the residual waste bin, in conjunction with that trial.

Advice from the Public and Environmental Health Council was sought in respect of those councils, and the implications of regulation 4(2). That advice was that the collection was not inconsistent with regulation 4(2) where managed in accordance with the instructions associated with the food waste trials. I point out that I have been advised that the trials involving fortnightly collection in the metro area have now ceased, and councils are now evaluating the responses. The only trials that are currently ongoing in the metro area involve weekly collection.

The government's interest in this matter is in the collection of food waste in the green organics bin and the reduction of waste to landfill. The government's interest is in maintaining public health, but the government has no legitimate interest in directing how or when councils collect their waste. For all the reasons I have given, the government does not support the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (22:03): I rise to support the legislation before the council, and I intend to make only a brief contribution. As a consumer of local government services, I, along with most other South Australians, end up paying hundreds of dollars a year in rates to the local council, and I am sure some ratepayers are paying thousands of dollars in council rates. I think most South Australians, with the exception of some members in this chamber and elsewhere, have the view that the very least you expect from your local council is that it collects your household rubbish and waste once a week. I do not think that is too much to expect for the hundreds of dollars we are paying to our local councils for all the supposedly many other fine things they do and for the various judgments they make about the needs and services they provide to their local community.

In the end, I am fairly confident that Leon Byner and his listeners have got it right when they say that most South Australians have the view that one of the functions that councils have always provided is a weekly rubbish collection service, and it is not an unreasonable expectation that councils ought to continue to provide that weekly service for households. If the Parnell, Winderlich and Hunter households and others want to engage in different processes and a whole variety of other measures of conservation they are talking about, that is fine; they can be encouraged to do so and, indeed, others can be encouraged to do so as well.

Most South Australians have the view that their weekly household rubbish collection service ought to be able to continue, and that is what this legislation is intended to do. If the legislation passes this council and the House of Assembly, there might need to be some finetuning of amendments to ensure that what we all understand this to be is, in essence, what the final wording in the legislation will include.

We know what is intended by the legislation; that is, the normal household collection of waste. We are not talking about the green bins and hard waste collection. The Hon. Mr Parnell obviously lives in a good council area where his green waste is collected every fortnight, evidently. Well, good luck to him. That is not the case in my council area, and I can assure you that it is not the case in a lot of other council areas as well. It varies in particular areas. We know what we are talking about. The issues that the Hon. Mr Hunter raises are red herrings to the debate. If it needs to be tidied up by way of a clarification amendment in the House of Assembly, should it get to that place, that can certainly be done.

The final point I make is that, should the legislation pass this council, it will then be able to be debated and voted on in the House of Assembly. A number of people, such as the member for Hartley and the Treasurer, have publicly indicated their views in relation to weekly waste collection. They know what they are talking about. They are talking about the same thing that the Hon. Mr Hood is talking about: the normal, readily understandable, weekly household waste collection that councils in the metropolitan area conduct.

This will be a good test for the member for Hartley and the Treasurer, who have been waxing lyrical on talkback radio with Leon Byner and others, indicating that they support weekly waste collection. The Hon. Mr Hunter said that the Rann government is opposing this legislation: it will oppose requiring a continuation of the current processes of weekly waste collection. One can only assume that that, therefore, includes the member for Hartley and the Treasurer.

However, with its introduction, if the legislation passes this council, we can then test the mettle of the member for Hartley to see whether her publicly professed views which she is prepared to stand up for and says are the views of her constituents, and to vote accordingly to represent her constituents in the House of Assembly to support the Hon. Mr Hood's legislation. It is a simple test. It is easy to talk the talk, but let us see if the member for Hartley is prepared to walk the walk and support the legislation of the Hon. Mr Hood.

This is the only way that we will be able to guarantee that what most South Australians want, which is a continuation of weekly collection, will be able to continue. As we heard in the minister's views on these issues, the trials being conducted by Zero Waste, the support from a number of councils and obviously the LGA in relation to this matter, and from the views that have been expressed during this debate, there is no doubt that there are a number of groups and individuals who do want to move away from the standard, the usual, the normal, weekly waste collection being conducted by local councils.

I congratulate the Hon. Mr Hood. Let's see the vote on this particular legislation. I am appalled that the Rann government will vote against what is a simple measure. I think that listeners to talkback radio, and others, when they become aware of this particular issue, will be appalled with the Rann government's decision, a decision supported by the member for Hartley, it would appear, and the state Treasurer.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (22:09): I would like to thank all the speakers to the bill. It has been somewhat more of an involved debate than I anticipated, to be frank. I would like to thank the Hons. Mr Hunter, Mr Lucas, Mr Wade, Mr Parnell, Mr Winderlich and Ms Bressington for their contributions. The purpose of this bill is very simple. I will not speak at length, because I think we have sufficiently thrashed out the detail for each of us to reach a position. This bill was formulated because it seemed that there is a silent coalition—maybe even an unknowing coalition in that they were not necessarily talking to each other, although perhaps they were—forming with the goal of introducing fortnightly rubbish collection in metropolitan Adelaide. I introduced this bill quite simply because I do not believe the public want it. I have spoken to, I estimate, a couple of hundred people, perhaps more, personally on this issue, and I am yet to come across anybody who says that they are convinced that we should proceed with it, other than people who have come to me specifically with that purpose. When I have asked people who do not have a specific position or are not involved in the system one way or another, they have all said that they do not want it.

I saw Zero Waste, what I suspected was the government's position (which has been confirmed tonight), the LGA, some individual councils and others appearing to form—maybe they were not even aware of each other's position—a coalition of sorts to introduce fortnightly collections. This bill will put a stop to that, and I have introduced it because I believe the public do not want it. It is as simple as that.

We have heard statistics this evening about people being in favour of this. The only decent data I have ever seen on this issue—I have not seen any Australian data on it—was compiled in the UK, where a survey indicated that 94 per cent of over 10,000 respondents did not want fortnightly collection. If you speak to the people I have spoken to who are proponents of this system being introduced, they argue that it has been a tremendous success in the UK. Certainly the survey of the people it affects the most, the residents leaving out their bins, suggests that those residents do not want it at all.

Briefly, the reality is that the fortnightly collection of rubbish under regulation 4(2) of the Public and Environmental General Health Regulations 2006 is against the regulations, that is, it is illegal. This bill will move the status of that regulation into legislation—that is the purpose of it. I openly confess that the bill is not perfect. The amendments which, as it turns out, will not be moved by the Liberal opposition in this place but will be moved in the other place actually improve the bill. All those amendments would have enjoyed Family First support, had they been moved in this chamber.

When I instructed parliamentary counsel to draft this legislation, I asked for a bill to deal with normal household waste. I take the comments made by the Hon. Mr Parnell and others that perhaps the wording in the bill is too broad, and I concur with that. The amendments, which will not be moved in this place but which have been tabled by the Hon. Mr Wade, clarify the bill and for that reason would have enjoyed Family First support.

This leaves a couple of members of the government, at the very least, in a difficult position. We have the Treasurer (Hon. Kevin Foley) and the member for Hartley (Grace Portolesi) having said quite publicly, to their credit, that they would oppose fortnightly collection. To the credit of the member for Hartley, she has been a strong campaigner against it, and I certainly applaud her position on that and I have spoken to her personally. I commend her, but it will be very difficult for her and the Treasurer when this bill goes to the lower house, should it enjoy passage in this place.

Finally, one of the initial motivations that sprang me to action was the fact that, as a ratepayer in the Prospect council area, I received a brochure in my letterbox that all but said that the council was moving to fortnightly collection. I pay some $2,400 a year in council rates and have what some may deem the unreasonable expectation that I get a weekly bin collection as part of paying that $2,400 a year. As aptly pointed out by the Hon. Mr Lucas, that is the expectation of most people who pay high or low council rates. It is still many hundreds of dollars, and in my case over $2,000 a year.

I received this brochure in my letterbox that was presented as a form of consultation with the Prospect community on whether or not we were prepared to engage in fortnightly collection. The problem is that the brochure did not ask me whether or not I wanted fortnightly collection. I did not have the opportunity to say in that brochure, 'I don't want this.' What it did was steer me in the direction of having no choice by asking quite silly questions, really, such as, 'Which questions on the frequently asked questions list did you find most helpful?' 'How can the council assist you in the transition from the current system to the proposed new system?' Not, 'Do you want the system?' 'How can we assist you in adopting it?' 'What is the best way to communicate waste management information to you?'

The PRESIDENT: I remind the honourable member that he has already made his second reading explanation.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I beg your pardon, Mr President. I am concluding, as I said. I will be brief, and I believe I have been. That was the nature of the questionnaire that was presented to me, and for that reason I sprang into action. I thank members for their contributions. I think we have possibly debated this enough, and it is time to put it to a vote.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to address a couple of issues that were raised by the Hon. Mr Hunter in his second reading contribution, particularly because he saw fit to refer to amendments which had not been moved. The Hon. Mr Hunter suggested that councils should decide what services they deliver. I agree, but they should do so within the law.

The public environmental health regulations state that residents occupying a premises must ensure that waste that is capable of causing insanitary condition is removed weekly. Whether or not an insanitary condition exists is not the point. The Hon. Mr Hunter referred to advice from the Public Environmental Health Council, and I think it would be of assistance to the council if I actually quoted the letter that Zero Waste has sent to councils reflecting that advice, because it is much more limited than the Hon. Mr Hunter may have been heard to imply. The letter states:

The Public Environmental Health Council has also advised that as this determination is a matter for the relevant authority, a local council may consider that through participation in the food waste pilot and using the containers provided as instructed, an owner of a premises may (as far as is practical) have a limited capability of the waste to cause an insanitary condition. Therefore, the requirement of the regulation for weekly removal is obviated and fortnightly removal of food waste, with green organic collections, can legally take place.

I stress the key phrase, 'the fortnightly removal of food waste'. That is not the issue. The Hon. Mr Hood's bill addresses the issue of the fortnightly removal of residual waste. If you ask only half a question you get only half an answer. The Hon. Ann Bressington says that we—

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind the honourable member that we are addressing the clauses of the bill, and it is not the honourable member's bill, anyway. The opportunity for that response was for the mover of the bill when he wrapped up. The Hon. Mr Wade should have some contribution to clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I could address the implied motives that the Hon. Mr Hunter gave in relation to—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is your job to address what the Hon. Ms Bressington or the Hon. Mr Hunter said. Have you got any questions to the mover of the bill, or any contribution to clause 1 of the bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I could address the issue of why my amendments are not progressing.

The CHAIRMAN: Your amendments?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Well, I did not raise them, sir: the Hon. Mr Hunter raised them. I would like to just clarify; the Hon. Mr Hunter has impugned to me motives—

The CHAIRMAN: It is the Hon. Mr Hood's bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, the Hon. Mr Hunter was the one who was impugning—

The CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Mr Hunter is entitled to his opinion. When you have contributions to clauses it is not the time to clarify or debate what the Hon. Mr Hunter or the Hon. Ms Bressington said.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I could just conclude my remarks.

The CHAIRMAN: So, let us move ahead, shall we, and address the clause?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In conclusion, in my view, this bill is not perfect. It would benefit from further amendment, amendments which I have had drafted but am not moving on this occasion. I certainly hope that honourable members of the other house favourably consider these amendments. In fact, it may well be that the Treasurer, who regards this trial as dopey, and the member for Hartley, who regards it as against the interests of her local members, will see fit to suggest ways of improving it. The amendments that I believe would improve this bill would primarily reflect the public and environmental health regulations which the government has indicated it stands by tonight. I think it is bizarre that the government should object to amendments that—

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind the honourable member that he is addressing clause 1. If the member thought that the government was bizarre in any way, he should have mentioned it in his second reading speech. What does the government being bizarre have to do with clause 1?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With all due respect, the government had not made its position clear at that point. I look forward to the government making its position clear when the bill is before the house.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Clause 5 is the operative clause in this bill. It basically provides:

A metropolitan council must endeavour to ensure that waste collection occurs on a weekly basis in any area of the council that is within metropolitan Adelaide.

My question is: if I have a lead acid battery and a couple of old tyres in my shed, and my council refuses to take them, what action can I take against the council? Do I have an action in the Supreme Court in mandamus or some prerogative writ that it has failed to comply with its statutory obligation by not taking away that rubbish when I want it to each week?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The situation is unchanged from the current situation.

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That's right.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I ask the mover to explain that. My understanding is that this bill does a couple of things. It creates a legal obligation on local councils that was not there before even though, as we have all heard, local councils have the role of rubbish collection. My understanding is that there is no statutory provision anywhere which says that local councils must collect rubbish. That has developed over time. They certainly have responsibilities under the Public and Environmental Health Act, which says that the health of an area is in the hands of the local council. This is the first time that there has been a statutory obligation on them to collect rubbish.

What I am interested in is: now that we have created an obligation on them for the first time, what are the consequences of their not collecting the rubbish? Can a dissatisfied property owner take them to court to force them to collect rubbish weekly?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I understand that they are currently obliged to do so under the health regulations, anyway, and that the penalty can be up to $1,000.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Public and Environmental Health (General) Regulations that have been referred to elsewhere basically talk about the owner of premises taking reasonable steps. They do not mention the council having responsibility. I am not denying that the council has general responsibilities under the Public and Environmental Health Act, but my understanding is that this bill, for the first time, sheets home responsibility for rubbish collection directly to councils. If the honourable member is uncertain of the answer, that is fine. The question in my mind is: having created a responsibility for them to do something that they did not legally have to do before but were doing for other reasons, are we perhaps opening councils up to threats of litigation?

Let us say that a council has a referendum in its local area, and 95 per cent of people are happy with some new arrangements that have been put in place that might involve fortnightly collection, yet we have an act of parliament—if this goes through—which says that they must endeavour to collect on a weekly basis. I just wonder whether we are opening councils to legal action at the suit of perhaps even a minority of unhappy ratepayers.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Hon. Mr Parnell has raised the issue of councils' obligations in relation to the collection of waste. In that context, I refer him to section 16 of the Public and Environmental Health Act 1987, which provides:

If premises are in an insanitary condition, any person who is responsible for causing the condition or allowing the condition to occur is guilty of an offence.

I put it to the Hon. Mr Parnell that, if an occupier has a responsibility under section 4(2) of the Public and Environmental Health (General) Regulations to make sure that any material that is capable of causing an insanitary condition is removed, the council, by failing to deliver a service, in that context, I believe, under section 16, is guilty of causing that condition. There is a fine of $8,000. It is all well and good for opponents of this bill to say that we should let the councils do what they like and ignore the law. The regulations state that occupiers shall ensure that material that is capable of causing insanitary conditions is removed at least weekly.

An honourable member: Occupiers.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Occupiers, yes, but why should—

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Sir, I rise on a point of order. I hardly think it appropriate for the Hon. Mr Wade to be answering questions on behalf of the Hon. Mr Hood, particularly those that have not been asked of him yet. If the Hon. Mr Wade has a question to put to the member who introduced the bill he should do so. But to attempt to answer a previous question from another member, I think, is not in order.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the bill might have been a joint effort, with respect to whose bill it is. I am a little confused as well.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sir, on the point of order, the Hon. Mr Parnell did not ask a question about it.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not your position to make anything on a point of order. It is the chair's position. The point that the Hon. Mr Hunter made is quite valid. I think you are straying. The Hon. Mr Parnell did not direct his question to you. The Hon. Mr Hood was asked the question and he has chosen not to give an answer. If you have any further contributions with respect to clause 5 you might want to get to them. The night is getting on.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a supplementary question on clause 5. Whether it is under regulation 4 of the Public and Environmental Health Regulations or whether it is under section 16, none of those sheets any responsibility home to the local council. This bill changes that for the first time. Just for the benefit of members, there has been a lot of talk about insanitary conditions. Whilst it is not defined in the Local Government Act (and this bill is amending the Local Government Act), it is defined in the Public and Environmental Health Act as follows:

Premises are in an insanitary condition if—

(a) the condition of the premises gives rise to a risk to health; or

(b) the premises are so filthy or neglected that there is a risk of infestation by rodents or other pests; or

(c) the condition of the premises is such as to cause justified offence to the owner of any land in the vicinity; or

(d) offensive material or odours are emitted from the premises; or

(e) the premises are for some other reason justifiably declared by the authority to be in an insanitary condition.

In relation to clause 5, my experience with the way in which this act and these regulations under the Public and Environmental Health Act have been interpreted is that they have never been applied to waste in a rubbish bin sitting waiting for collection, whether it has been sitting there for a day, a week, two weeks or even a month. These laws have only ever been applied, quite sensibly, to serious cases where rats and mice and snakes and other things are involved or it is stinking up the entire neighbourhood. I just wanted to make that additional contribution to clause 5.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The only thing I can say about the entire point is that I think it is clear that councils have a contractual obligation to collect people's rubbish, by way of taking the council rates, as they gleefully do every quarter, and by the very fact that they do that at the present time.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Following the line of the Hon. Mr Parnell, I would like to ask a question. This key clause, clause 5, provides that a metropolitan council must endeavour to ensure that waste collection occurs. It does not say 'a metropolitan council must ensure'; it says it 'must endeavour to ensure'. I am interested to know what would constitute 'endeavour'.

Secondly, I ask the honourable member whether 'waste collection' is defined anywhere else in the bill, because it seems to me a council might establish a waste collection but it might do it in such a way that there might be all sorts of constraints on it—so it might be a very limited waste collection, or it could be more comprehensive. I ask the honourable member whether there is any relevant definition of what the scope of the waste collection would be and, also, why is it only 'endeavour' to ensure it, and what would constitute 'endeavour' in relation to establishing waste collection?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I agree with the minister. When I asked to have this drafted by parliamentary counsel, that is what was returned. The Liberal amendments address both those issues, that is, they delete the words 'endeavour to', so that would be clarified. Finally, amendment No. 3 clarifies exactly what 'waste' refers to.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Suppose you had a situation where, for various reasons, you could not have a collection for a week—there could be a strike, or any reason. That has certainly happened in some cities in the world and we have seen rubbish pile up. Does that mean the council would be in breach, even if it had—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: It is 'endeavour'.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, we just heard that the Liberal definition was going to take it out. This is why I want some clarification on this point.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Mr Chairman, on your previous rulings, I cannot see how the minister can ask for clarification of amendments that are not being moved.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No, I am asking for clarification about the bill and what it means.

The CHAIRMAN: The minister is asking the member who introduced the bill to clarify the word 'endeavour' and what that means, and what responsibility that puts on the council under clause 5. It is nothing to do with the amendments. You can forget about the amendments: no-one has moved the amendments.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: He keeps referring to them.

The CHAIRMAN: The member who introduced the bill just referred to the amendments and said the Liberal amendments clear up this, but the amendments are not being moved.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Mr Chairman, to be fair, I think we all had anticipated that the amendments would be in the bill.

The CHAIRMAN: Let us forget about the amendments. They are not here. They are gone, and are history.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Only because the government was not ready to proceed on the basis of the amendments.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The amendments were withdrawn by the Hon. Mr Wade. They were his amendments and he is not moving them. Now you want to blame the government for the amendments not being moved. Perhaps you want to respond to the minister's question about the word 'endeavour'.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Well, Mr Chairman, I have.

Clause passed.

Clause 6 and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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