HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

REFUSE CONTROL

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:04): I move:

That the General Regulations under the Public and Environmental Health Act 1987 concerning Control of Refuse, made on 17 September 2009 and laid on the table of this council on 22 September 2009, be disallowed.

The motion seeks to disallow an amendment to a regulation tabled in this place yesterday. However, I remind honourable members that the need for the regulation goes back more than two years. In January 2008 the state government, through Zero Waste, invited councils to trial a fortnightly collection of general waste.

In July 2008 the government announced that 10 councils had been receiving state government funding to participate in the trial. The minister at the time indicated that four of the councils would be trialling fortnightly collection. Separately, the Prospect council has indicated that it will tender for a fortnightly waste collection to commence in July 2010, beyond the scope of the trial.

In March, the opposition raised concerns that fortnightly waste collection is contrary to the Public and Environmental Health General Regulations 2006. Regulation 4(2) 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.

By failing to collect rubbish weekly, councils and the government put owners and occupiers at risk of breaching the Public and Environmental Health Regulations. The Liberal opposition insists that the Public and Environmental Health Regulations be complied with and enforced. Those who make the laws should not break the laws.

We cannot expect our citizens and ratepayers to abide by our laws and bylaws when we ignore them when it suits us as a government and a council. In this context the Hon. Dennis Hood introduced a bill to highlight the failure of the government to enforce Public and Environmental Health Regulations. Liberal amendments were filed but not moved so as to avoid giving the government a pretext to procrastinate. The amendments would have changed the bill to more closely reflect the Public and Environmental Health Regulations to, therefore, highlight both our concern about health and about the need for due regard to the law.

In spite of the opposition of the government, the Hood bill passed this council and is languishing on the Notice Paper of the other place. After months of pressure, the Minister for Environment and Conservation (Jay Weatherill) went on radio FIVEaa on 30 June this year and, on behalf of the government, backed down. He said, 'We will be enacting a law which makes sure there is weekly collection of waste.' Leon Byner, not often lost for words, said, 'Would you just say that again?' The minister said:

We will be enacting a law which ensures that weekly collection of waste—and I think the Norwood council knew that that's what would happen if they went down the path they did last night.

The government promised to change the law to force councils to collect waste weekly. Then last week we find that the government has merely amended a regulation, adding a subregulation. New subregulation (4) provides:

In order to facilitate compliance with subregulation (2), it is expected that a metropolitan council (within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1999) will provide a weekly kerbside waste collection service in respect of residential premises within its area.

There is no change to the obligation in subregulation (2). Owners of premises will still be legally obliged to dispose of waste that is capable of causing insanitary conditions at least once a week.

The key word in the new subregulation is 'expected'. Councils are not required to do anything: they are expected to provide a collection service. Having committed to requiring weekly waste collection, the government has put forward this amendment to a regulation with a mere expectation. It is a failure to deliver the promise of a better law. The government has breached its commitment. Surely parliament, of all places, knows that laws are laws and expectations are a hope.

If the government is requiring action, why does it not say 'require'? Laws are enforceable, after all. What happens if a council does not live up to these expectations? The Minister for Environment and Conservation (Hon. J. Weatherill) went on Radio FIVEaa last Friday and said that the amended regulation would act as a requirement because the council would respect it.

I fail to understand how councils can be expected to respect a regulation by doing something that on its face it does not say. The government needs to talk straight. If the government means what it says, it should say what it means. If the government is requiring councils to collect waste weekly, it should say 'require' in the regulation.

I seek the support of the council to disallow this amendment to the regulations, first, because the amendment does not meet the commitment of a law requiring weekly collection; secondly, because it does not reflect the minister's interpretation of the regulation being a requirement; and, thirdly, because it would mislead readers of the regulation to see the subregulation as not being mandatory.

In conclusion, I note that, if the minister is correct and the regulation is to act as a requirement, it would have the fatal flaw that the minister accused the Hood bill of having. The regulation does not distinguish between insanitary waste and other waste, so that if councils read this expectation as a requirement, as the minister said they should, they will be collecting all types of waste weekly, including recyclables and hard rubbish. The opposition is not asking for that, and the community is not asking for that. This highlights that the government is continuing to play games on this issue.

I seek the support of members to disallow the amendment to the regulation so that we can get on with getting a regulation or a bill that will do what the government has committed to and what the community demands, and that is weekly collection of insanitary waste.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.L. Brokenshire.

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