HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 August 2024.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (16:49): I rise to make a contribution on the Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024 and the latest amendments now before the council. This bill has been in development for a number of years. The consultation process commenced under the former Liberal government in 2019, when the Environment Protection Authority undertook a broad review of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016 to identify opportunities for improvement. That process involved local government and key industry stakeholders, and it is pleasing to see many of those discussions now reflected in the bill before us.

While much of the legislation is administrative in nature, there are a few key areas that have attracted concern and discussion, most notably the provisions dealing with the management of shopping trolleys and the obligation placed upon small retailers. The bill, as originally introduced, created a framework that classifies shopping trolleys as litter and imposes obligation on retailers to identify, monitor and retrieve them once they are reported as being off site. It also sets timeframes for collection.

There were amendments for immediate retrieval where a trolley posed a hazard or within three business days where it did not. The most recent set of amendments represents a modest improvement, which has been welcomed by those industry representatives we have spoken to. They extend the allowable timeframe for collection, introduce clearer and more reasonable defences for noncompliance, and provide flexibility for councils and the minister to vary or revoke notices where appropriate.

Under the amended provisions, a retailer will not be in breach if it is too dangerous to retrieve a trolley, if the trolley cannot be collected using standard equipment, or if retrieval would contravene regulatory requirements. The changes recognise the realities of operating a small business and the practical challenges faced when dealing with trolleys that have been dumped or abandoned in public areas.

The Liberal Party acknowledges these refinements as a step in the right direction. However, we maintain that the underlying principle remains problematic. Through consultation with, for example, the South Australian Independent Retailers association, it is clear that many independent supermarket owners continue to view the approach as unfair. Their position is simple and it is logical: a shopping trolley that has been stolen or unlawfully removed from business premises should not be defined as litter, and the owner of that stolen property should not be penalised for the unlawful actions of other persons.

These are small business owners who already invest significantly in security and collection systems to deter theft and to maintain the amenity of their local communities. To impose additional fines or compliance burdens on those same businesses risks punishing the very people already working to address the problem. We understand and share the communities' frustration of abandoned trolleys, but the issue at its core is not littering, it is theft. An approach that recognises this distinction and encourages cooperation between retailers, local government and enforcement we believe is better placed.

The Liberal Party will not oppose the passage of this bill. However, we will continue to monitor its practical implementation closely. We remain concerned, and we will remain open to further reform should these measures prove ineffective or unfair in their operation, because while these amendments provide greater flexibility and a measure of fairness the test will ultimately be whether this legislation change keeps our streets cleaner without unfairly penalising South Australian small business owners.

I want to speak briefly to my amendment to schedule 1, part 3 of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act to introduce primary production within the list of activities that are not considered a local nuisance under this legislation. Under the current schedule 1, part 3 of the act, 'Things that are not local nuisance', I think it is important to note that mining operations are specifically exempt and have been for quite some time, yet primary production—that is, growing the food and fibre that sustains our state and our nation—is notably absent under this schedule, in particular part 3 of this schedule.

This is a gap that we certainly believe needs to be addressed. If we can recognise the importance of mining in this way, then surely we can and must do the same for our farmers and farming. This amendment is about protecting the rights of our farmers to farm, and it is about ensuring that people who are growing our food, producing our wine, tending to livestock, managing orchards and crops, and who are involved in our commercial forestry can continue to do so without being shut down through the back door of nuisance complaints.

I think it is worth noting that this amendment is directly in line with key policy platforms from industry. Certainly, we have consulted with Primary Producers SA, the umbrella body that represents multiple primary production associations across this state. This is a serious issue they have identified across their membership. We have also consulted and spoken with AUSVEG SA, which sits outside of that PPSA umbrella, and they too have acknowledged this is a significant issue for their membership as well.

We are increasingly seeing the encroachment of urban sprawl on productive agricultural land. More and more new residents are moving into what were once rural or peri-urban farming zones. While coexistence is absolutely possible it cannot come at the cost of making it impossible for farmers to do their job.

The act as it stands allows complaints to be made about noise, odour, dust and other by-products of normal primary production activities. These are often inevitable—the sound of the tractor at dawn, the dust of harvest—and they do not constitute unreasonable or negligent behaviour by our farmers, but without clear legislative protection they can be weaponised. We cannot have a situation where the very people producing our state's food are forced to significantly change how they operate or, worse, be forced to shut down altogether because of nuisance actions brought under this act. It is not fair to farmers and it is not in the public interest.

By including primary production in schedule 1, part 3, we are providing certainty and protection, not to allow bad practice but to acknowledge that farming is not a nuisance. It is an essential activity, it is a way of life and it is the pillar of South Australia's economy and our food security.

I also note that the act already provides for compliance with other environmental and planning laws, and this amendment certainly does not override those protections. I want to make that clear. It simply ensures that legitimate, responsible farming practices cannot be undermined by inappropriate nuisance complaints, because primary producers deserve the same level of legislative recognition and certainty as other major industries in our state. This amendment is a practical, sensible step to back our farmers and to ensure they can keep feeding South Australia without fear of being litigated off their land. With that, I conclude my remarks on the bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:58): I rise today to speak in support of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. When this bill passed the lower house last year it was clear that there needed to be further consultation and acknowledgement of the impacts of these changes on stakeholders. Thank you to the EPA for taking the time to ensure these changes are practical and aligned with community expectations. This bill follows years of consultation, beginning in 2019 and continuing through formal engagement with councils, industry and the public. Targeted consultation with the Local Government Association and retailers after the bill passed the lower house further strengthened the amendments.

These changes ensure our legislation remains relevant, fit for purpose and responsive to community needs. They also reinforce protections for the environment and help keep our neighbourhoods clean, safe and welcoming. Importantly, the bill empowers local councils to manage nuisance and litter issues more effectively and responds to the disallowance of the City of Marion's shopping trolley by-laws in 2021, which highlighted the need for consistent statewide tools to address trolley abandonment. Key reforms include:

shopping trolley management: mandatory identification and timely collection of abandoned trolleys, with enforcement via litter abatement notices;

business responsibilities: a general duty of businesses to prevent or minimise litter, including from stormwater systems;

new offences: penalties for installing air conditioners or external lights that cause nuisance;

enhanced enforcement tools: registration of abatement notices on land titles, differentiated penalties for individuals and corporations, and cost recovery for urgent clean-ups;

council flexibility: allowing councils to waive site nuisance management plans where impacts are limited and unavoidable; and

licensing clarity: clearer delineation of nuisance regulation on premises licensed under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997.

Together, these reforms offer a more practical and proportionate approach to regulation while protecting community amenity. They respond to real issues, such as the hundreds of trolleys found submerged in the Port Augusta wharf, and address longstanding concerns such as litter escaping into stormwater systems and nuisance from improperly installed devices.

The amendments also clarify that retailers are not expected to breach other laws, such as trespass, when retrieving trolleys. Councils retain the ability to issue litter abatement notices even when a defence applies, ensuring accountability remains in place. This bill promotes a shared responsibility between government, business and community, essential for sustainable and effective environmental management. It is not just about enforcement; it is about fostering a culture of stewardship and collaboration. The EPA will continue working with the councils and retailers to develop supporting regulations, ensuring these reforms are implemented effectively.

I see this bill as a logical, balanced and forward-thinking reform that protects our environment that we live in. I will be supporting the bill, along with the government's amendments. I will also be considering the amendments proposed by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti regarding exemption for farming communities and the business of primary production. With those words, I commend the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:02): I rise to speak on the Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. In so doing, and at the outset, I thank the minister's staff for the briefing paper provided to us to bring us up to speed on what has been a law six years in the making.

I will not lie, you could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw this listed as a priority for today. It certainly made it difficult to establish whether the amendments that have been filed are an agreed compromise, and what concerns remain outstanding for those groups that this impacts, particularly when it comes to the issue of shopping trolleys, something which we have debated to death in this place previously and has just sat lingering around only to be brought back today. It has made it difficult.

The last submission that I have in front of me from the South Australian Independent Retailers certainly pre-dates the debate that took place in this place, and whilst there have been discussions since then, I think it is fair to say that our Foodlands and our Independent Retailers association have been vocal in terms of their concerns about this bill with members of this place, particularly as it relates to those sorts of smaller operators that were referred to by the honourable Leader of the Opposition. I still do not know and cannot establish whether this is a compromise, in that everybody has agreed. I suspect, reading between the lines and what I have discussed, that there are remaining concerns and outstanding concerns, but effectively here we are.

I think it is worth reminding honourable members that we had regulations passed in this place that were subject to a disallowance motion when the City of Marion council tried to take on this issue itself by introducing by-laws to address the issue. That happened post the review starting into the issue of shopping trolleys. That disallowance motion ultimately passed this place with support and effectively meant that we had to think of an approach that incorporated the views not just of the City of Marion council in their by-laws but of every council across the state, and that also took into account the position of our smaller players in the retail space. As the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, smaller retailers have been quite vocal on this front because of the additional cost burdens it will have on them.

For the record, from my perspective, the concerns of those small retailers and the impacts that a bill like this will have on them are not just that they are footing the bill for this but that they are footing the bill for what can only be described as persistent and bad behaviour by people who dump trolleys. There is nothing in this bill—even the change to incorporate a trolley as litter under this bill—that will convince me that this bill will change that behaviour by those individuals. We have heard the references to the 500 trolleys that were dumped and submerged off the wharf at Port Augusta. That is not the only example of bad behaviour. We see it everywhere. We also have instances where stores cannot really do anything about the fact that people have taken their trolleys and are using them for whatever purposes.

What I am concerned about is that small businesses, which in today's economic climate are struggling already, are now having this additional layer added on top of them where they will be responsible for the bad behaviour and persistent bad behaviour of individuals who choose to do the wrong thing. Fundamentally, that is an issue that I do not think is addressed by this bill. I do remain concerned, though, that this bill punishes those individuals from the retail sector who can least afford it on the part of those individuals who partake in unruly behaviour with shopping trolleys.

There is another element of this bill that concerns me. At this point in time, my position is actually to oppose the insertion of new section 19A unless I can be convinced otherwise. I understand from the briefing that I had that air-conditioning units, for instance, are probably the single biggest cause of complaints in terms of nuisance or noise complaints, but I think it points to much bigger issues that we have, particularly in building the concentration of houses onto allotments, something that we need in terms of housing all the people who are trying desperately to get into a home.

The one example that springs to mind for me—and it sprung to mind for me straightaway when I was querying this particular provision—is I live in a house. If someone next door to me decides that they are going to sell their allotment and, in place of their one house, four or five or six are going to be built, and every one of those new townhouses has an air conditioner, inevitably those air conditioners are interrupting my enjoyment of my property, from my front fence right to my back fence.

This is a real-life example, and one that I have an objection to, where from your front lounge to the end of your backyard you have six air-conditioning units and the noise that comes from those interferes with your enjoyment of your property. I then get to the point where I want to replace my air-conditioning unit in my single-dwelling home on my block and I do that and I put in an air-conditioning unit appropriate to cool or heat my home only for the person in unit 1 or 2, or whatever it is, to complain and say that that particular air-conditioning unit is creating too much noise. So I have to put up with six next door, but on this side of the fence if I go and install one this opens the way for somebody to be subject to a penalty.

To make things even worse, it is not necessarily the owner of the property but potentially the installer of the air-conditioning unit. How we can attribute that level of blame to somebody who is responsible for installing is beyond me. We go to professionals. We buy an air-conditioning unit. You go to Harvey Norman. You buy your air-conditioning unit. You bring the people out to install it at your house. They do not care what you have bought. They are doing their job. They are installing an air conditioner on your property. They are doing it according to code and guidelines and whatever else, but all of a sudden they could find themselves liable to penalties proposed under this bill because there is too much noise or nuisance coming from that air-conditioning unit. Unless I have completely read this wrong, that makes absolutely no sense to me.

I do not know that this is the appropriate way to deal with the complaints that the government says overwhelmingly attribute to the number of complaints that are made each year about air-conditioning units or lights. The same can be said for the electrician you call to come and install a light at your property. Is it the owner of the property or is it the person who installed the light who can be held liable for that? Under this bill, it appears on the face of it and on first reading that it is actually both.

So the electrician who came and did that work at your property and installed the light, a person who installs a designated device—a light or an air-conditioning unit as two examples—or causes those to be installed, so the owner for instance, can be found guilty of an offence and there are of course quite significant penalties at the upper end. The expiation fees might be low, $500 in the case of a corporation and $210 in the case of an individual, but maximum penalties are $5,000 in the case of an individual and $10,000 in the case of a body corporate.

I do not know what level of education has been undertaken by the government in relation to how this will apply to those industries that might be impacted by the installation of these sorts of devices at properties, but it certainly raised alarm bells with me. So either the government clarifies that everything I have just said is wrong on the basis that I was not as prepared as the government to be in here debating this today or it clarifies how it is justifiable that we can hold those individuals responsible for installing these devices and make them subject to criminal penalties.

Overwhelmingly, this bill does not overwhelm me, particularly in relation to where we have landed on shopping trolleys and particularly in relation to where we have landed on the installation of devices.

I note that the remainder of the bill has not been subject to the same level of controversy and I am supportive of those other elements of this bill that are not. But I do think that, at the very least, it would be helpful if the minister indicated for the record what the position of stakeholders was with respect to consultation that occurred in relation to shopping trolleys and who were the compromises reached with. Is it a matter of: this is the best outcome we can get between local government and the Foodlands and the Independent Retailers? And who did we consult with over the installation provisions? Did we consult with the peak bodies about the potential impact that these provisions would have on them, if indeed I have interpreted this correctly?

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (17:14): The purpose of the bill that we have in front of us I think has been gone into at some length by other speakers so I will probably leave that out. The direction that this bill has taken has also been the subject of some discussion by the speakers, so I can probably get everyone home sooner without having to go to that. An additional stage of targeted consultation—I believe the Hon. Ms Lee spoke to that, and certainly the aims of the important reforms and the nature of trolleys somewhat taking over as the primary reform which caused some discussion has been ventilated by many speakers.

An ability for councils to issue litter abatement notices to retailers with shopping trolley management requirements has somewhat, as I said, become the basis of discussion. As was outlined by the Hon. Ms Lee, during the lower house debate questions were raised about what appears to be something of a car crash of shopping trolleys off the wharf in Port Augusta—500 of them. That seems like a lot but you never know, there might be more.

The former Minister for Climate, Environment and Water undertook to consider whether a reasonableness existed within the bill or whether one was required in drafting between the houses. The government has subsequently filed amendments to ensure a certain amount of responsibility is applied to shopping trolley collection requirements. In preparing these amendments the EPA was engaged in targeted consultation with retailers and the LGA, and I am reliably informed that we have struck a balance between what is reasonable for retailers and local government and I commend 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