HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-05-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (WASTE COLLECTION) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:27): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1999. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:27): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This Family First bill, introduced today, will require local councils within the metropolitan area of Adelaide that already collect rubbish on a weekly basis to continue to do so. So, the next few minutes I will be talking absolute garbage, quite unlike my usual contributions, of course, even if I do say so myself—a perhaps foolhardy attempt to lighten the mood, Mr President!

Family First believes that fortnightly collections may result in health, odour and hygiene problems. As members know, I have a baby daughter, and fortnightly collections in families like mine, with young children, would, for example, mean used nappies being left outside in bins in the sun for up to two weeks. Under a fortnightly collection system, if a collection is missed—if someone is away on holidays, for example, or for whatever reason cannot put out the bins for a particular collection (which has happened to me when I have been away)—we could see people going a month between collections. I can assure you that is highly undesirable indeed, particularly, again, in cases of families who have young children who are therefore dealing with nappies on an all too regular basis.

My understanding is that Adelaide instituted a policy of weekly garbage collection following a substantial increase in rat plagues in the 1880s. The United Kingdom is often touted as being a main proponent of fortnightly rubbish collections; it has about 180 counties that collect recyclables once a week and general household garbage the next week—therefore, a fortnightly collection regime. It is no wonder that those UK counties now report a 23 per cent increase in rat numbers. An article in The Advertiser of 5 May, entitled 'Plague spreads like rat up a drainpipe', states that 'Britain is heading for a rat explosion'. It goes on to say:

In the past year, local councils were called out to deal with 700,000 infestations…said the National Pest Technicians Association.

What are the reasons for this massive increase in rat infestation? As well as their having some immunity to poisons, one possible reason given, according to The Advertiser article, is that 'fortnightly rubbish collections—which can mean bins overflowing with rotting food—are fuelling a boom in the rat population'. I would submit that the last thing Adelaide needs is to have a rat and mice plague, as we did in the 1880s.

The former minister for the environment answered a question in this place on 3 March this year, explaining that her office was responsible for facilitating councils joining this trial. She noted the following:

The waste trial currently taking place was something on which, when I was minister for the environment, we set frameworks, sent out expressions of interest to councils encouraging them to consider participating in the trial and, having done that, took the next step, if my memory serves me correctly, and established an information forum where we informed interested councils of parameters around the trial.

By the way, the former minister for the environment was also the minister assisting the minister for health. I think the minister, in pushing for this initiative, could have been working against (at some level anyway, according to the evidence from overseas) the interests of the health of South Australian families.

The United Kingdom at least has the benefit of colder weather. Adelaide often has days over 40 degrees in summer—as we experienced over the past two summers. In those circumstances, I think most people understand the problems that could be created by a fortnightly garbage collection.

I also put on the record that many United Kingdom councils are now reconsidering fortnightly garbage collections because of the rat problem and other health issues that have resulted from the fortnightly rubbish collection regime. Indeed, there is mounting evidence in the United Kingdom that fortnightly rubbish collections do nothing to encourage recycling. A report by the UK Commons Local Government Committee, which was released about a year ago, concluded that fortnightly rubbish collections were not proved to have led to increased recycling. It further advised that more research was needed into the public health risks arising from food rotting in garbage bins for an extended period of time. Certainly, it appears that the tide is turning against fortnightly collections in the UK, where the regime has been trialled.

I take the opportunity to address an issue raised by the Mayor of Prospect on FIVEaa, on the Leon Byner Show, on 8 May this year. He said:

We surveyed [some] 10,000 households, we had 5,000 responses on this. Ninety people were absolutely against fortnightly collection. We take that on board, but we had more people demanding that we introduce this sooner rather than later.

The figure mentioned by the mayor does not sound too bad: he mentioned 90 negative responses out of 10,000 surveyed. I live in the Prospect council area, and I received the survey, and the trouble with that statistic is that I can categorically say that there was nowhere on the survey for you to indicate that you did not want fortnightly collections.

So, those 90 people who have stated on the questionnaire that they opposed the fortnightly collection regime must have either written a covering letter to the survey questionnaire or they scrawled somewhere on the survey questionnaire that they did not want fortnightly collections. In fact, not only was there no opportunity on the document sent out to object to fortnightly collection but all the questions were slanted towards making it easier to introduce such a regime. Indeed, the flyer asked what I would regard peripheral questions, including:

What is the best way to communicate waste management information to you?

How can the council assist you in the transition from the current system to the proposed new system?

Which questions on the' Frequently asked questions' list did you find most helpful?

There was no question asking whether or not residents wanted fortnightly collections. In a recent British survey, which included the question of whether residents preferred weekly or fortnightly collection, 94 per cent of the 10,379 people who responded opposed fortnightly collections. I suspect that the result would be similar if the Prospect council and other councils considering a fortnightly collection regime properly surveyed their residents. I note that the City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters has now scaled back its trial after it also met with stiff community opposition to the scheme, and I acknowledge the work of Grace Portolesi, the member for Hartley, in the other place in that regard.

The other issue relates to current health regulations. As the Hon. Stephen Wade also noted on the Leon Byner program yesterday morning, I think it was, regulation 4(2) of the Public and Environmental Health (General) Regulations 2006 requires residents to dispose of their garbage on a weekly basis. The regulation provides:

The owner of premises must take reasonable steps to ensure that refuse on the premises that is capable of causing an unsanitary 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 basis for the regulation is in section 15 of the Public environmental health Act 1987, which provides:

(1) If premises are in an unsanitary condition, the authority may, by notice in writing, require an owner of the premises, or any other person who is apparently responsible for causing the unsanitary condition or allowing the unsanitary condition to occur—

(a) to take specified action to improve the condition of the premises; or

(b) to desist from a specified activity to which the condition of the premises is apparently attributable.

Who was the authority? The interpretation section of the act tells us. It provides:

(1) In this act, unless the contrary intention appears—the authority means—

(a) in relation to a local government area—the local council for that area.

We are left with the completely unacceptable solution that the council, which may have moved to fortnightly collection, is required by the act to enforce weekly rubbish collections. Clearly, this is a clear contradiction and a clear conflict of interest. That dichotomy is the reason why we need a bill, such as the one I am proposing today, which requires councils to collect garbage on a weekly basis. This is an issue that has attracted media attention in the past few days and, no doubt, it will continue to attract attention in the future.

I understand that there are councils which have been considering moving down this path for some time and others which have moved away from it. For example, the Burnside council considered going down this path. The council conducted a trial, but the trial was abandoned after only two weeks. I understand that it was scheduled to continue for several months, but it was abandoned after only two weeks because the residents simply did not want it.

My very strong view is that, on the whole, South Australians do not want fortnightly rubbish collection, but it has been forced upon them. Clearly, if the councils are pursuing this regime, they are acting in breach of the regulations, which require a weekly collection as the minimum. For that reason, I believe this bill deserves support from members on all sides of the council, and I look forward to debate on the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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