Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.
Second Reading
[3.54 p.m.]
Ms WRIEDT (Franklin - Minister for Environment - 2R) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I
move -
That the bill be now read the second time.
The purpose of this bill is to replace the current Litter Act 1973 with an entirely
new act for the control of litter. Litter is a pervasive problem in our modern
world. It spoils the visual amenity of our urban and natural environments and
can have adverse ecological effects on our waterways, bushland and animals.
It is now time to take action to prevent and control littering more effectively.
As well as improving and protecting our environment, we need to ensure that
littering does not detract from our reputation as 'clean and green' and from
the attractiveness of our tourism destinations. This bill aims to apply new,
more effective approaches to our littering problems. Several of these approaches
are modelled on measures which have proven to be effective in other Australian
jurisdictions.
The measures in the bill were developed during detailed consultation with government
agencies and local government councils which will enforce the new legislation;
with stakeholder groups concerned about littering or operating relevant industries;
and with the public. A range of options for new legislation was included in
an issues and options paper released for public comment in 2004.
The bill approaches litter control in several ways. Litter is defined widely.
It includes objects like discarded food containers and papers, as well as dumped
bags of garbage, household items, garden waste and building material. The offence
of depositing litter is intended to cover the many ways litter can enter the
environment. It will be an offence to deliberately discard litter. It will also
be an offence for a person to allow litter to escape from a place, or for it
to be placed in such a way that it is likely to escape. It is no longer acceptable
for materials to be stored or transported insecurely or for rubbish bins and
skips to be overloaded.
Be assured that these new measures will be applied in a reasonable manner. It
is not intended to penalise people who deposit litter accidentally and take
reasonable steps to retrieve it, nor will the bill interfere with owners and
occupiers placing litter on their private land, provided they prevent it escaping
elsewhere.
The service of infringement notices for littering offences will be the major
way the new act will be enforced. Offences can also be prosecuted in court.
Monetary penalties for littering offences will increase. This is an important
disincentive against littering and will bring Tasmania in line with penalties
in other Australian jurisdictions. The bill provides for three levels of penalties
depending on the amount littered, so that the penalty increases with the seriousness
of the offence. Infringement penalties will be set in regulations and are expected
to range from 1 to 5 penalty units. Maximum court penalties are set in the bill
and will be 2, 20 and 50 penalty units respectively for the three levels of
offence. A single, small item - such as a cigarette butt or bus ticket - will
attract the lowest penalty. This offence is aimed at cigarette butt littering
in particular. Many people do not perceive cigarette butts as litter; however,
cigarette butts now comprise approximately 47 per cent of items littered in
Tasmania and the chemicals contained in them can have adverse environmental
impacts when leached into the ground or washed into waterways.
Deposit of litter less than 55 litres in volume will be penalised at the second
level. Fifty-five litres is the volume of the standard green garbage bag purchased
at supermarkets and has been chosen as an easily recognised measure. If the
litter deposited is greater than 55 litres in volume, it will be penalised at
the highest level. This highest penalty is especially aimed at dumping of litter
in vacant lots, parks and bushland.
Some specific littering offences are created in the bill to address known littering
problems. It will be an offence to deposit household or commercial rubbish in
a public litter bin or receptacle, unless it is clearly marked for that purpose.
Controls are placed on the delivery of unsolicited documents, such as advertising
material, to prevent this material becoming litter. Unsolicited documents, such
as advertising material, must be placed in a secure place at premises, cannot
be placed on vehicle windscreens and can only be posted on structures with the
consent of the owner or occupier. Persons responsible for producing and distributing
such material will have a duty to ensure it is delivered in accordance with
the legislation.
Littering along roads and in car parks has become a persistent problem. Indeed,
roads and car parks are the most littered sites in the State. Litter in these
areas is unsightly and its removal is a costly expenditure of public money.
Littering cigarette butts from motor vehicles can also lead to bushfires, particularly
in the very dry conditions that are affecting the State at the moment. Roadside
littering is a difficult offence to enforce and discourage, because police and
authorised officers can only witness and serve infringement notices on a small
proportion of offenders.
The bill addresses roadside littering in two ways. Firstly, a scheme to be known
as the Litter Hotline will be established to enable members of the public to
report littering offences. Infringement notices can then be served and prosecutions
made on the basis of such reports. The hotline will target littering from motor
vehicles, as members of the public are in a better position to witness such
occurrences. The Litter Hotline will be based on a litter reporting scheme that
has operated for several years in Victoria. There will be safeguards against
vexatious or incorrect reporting. It will be an offence to provide false or
misleading information. Persons making reports must provide their name and address
and details of the offence, including the registration number of the vehicle.
These details will be checked before infringement notices are issued. It is
also proposed that reporting forms require the person who makes a report to
agree to attend court, should this be necessary.
Secondly, the registered operators of motor vehicles and trailers will be deemed
to have committed littering offences related to their vehicles. This provision
is important for the success of the Litter Hotline, as it enables an infringement
notice to be served on the registered operator of a reported vehicle. This will
not mean that registered operators have to pay penalties if they did not commit
the offence. In a similar arrangement to traffic offences, registered operators
will be able to complete a statutory declaration if the motor vehicle was being
driven by another person, was stolen, or the offence was committed by another
person. The infringement notice may then be withdrawn and another notice for
the offence served on another person.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the bill is not only about penalising littering. It is intended
also to achieve good management of litter, to prevent material becoming litter
and to assist councils and other authorities to manage litter in areas for which
they are responsible. Persons who commit littering offences may be required
to remove the litter. Should a person fail to carry out this work, the relevant
council or body may conduct the work and seek reimbursement of the reasonable
costs of the work.
The bill provides for the issue of litter abatement notices. These are intended
to be flexible tools tailored to address specific littering problems. They can
be used in a wide range of situations and can be issued to persons responsible
for managing an area, as well as to persons who deposit litter. For instance,
a litter abatement notice might require the removal of litter. It might require
a person conducting an activity or enterprise from which litter is escaping
to manage that litter better. Abatement notices will be of particular use where
the person or persons responsible for depositing the litter cannot be determined.
In commercial or residential complexes with multiple owners or tenants, there
may be problems with litter escaping from common areas or rubbish skips. The
overall owner or manager of the complex could be issued with an abatement notice
requiring action to resolve the problem - for instance, covering of rubbish
containers or provision of more containers. Abatement notices are intended to
be used in a reasona ble way and will be subject to an appeal to the Administrative
Appeals Division of the Magistrates Court.
The new legislation will be enforced by authorised officers appointed from councils
or from government agencies. Police officers will automatically become authorised
officers under the new act. Subject to reasonable conditions, authorised officers
will have adequate powers to enter places and obtain information and evidence
in the course of administering or enforcing the act.
Finally, the bill enables revenue gained from certain litter penalties and fines
to be put back into litter management and education. The bill creates a Litter
Management Fund into which litter penalty and fine moneys, except where matters
are dealt with by councils, will be paid instead of into the Consolidated Fund.
Moneys in the fund are to be used for operating the Litter Hotline and purposes
related to the act, such as litter education. Moneys from penalties imposed
and actions brought by councils will be paid to the relevant council, as is
the case under the current Litter Act.
In conclusion, this bill will introduce more effective and progressive litter
control to Tasmania. It will also assist in better management of litter problems
and sources of litter. Overall, it will make an important contribution towards
the protection of Tasmanias lifestyle, environmental quality and the attractiveness
of our communities and tourism destinations. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the
bill to the House.
[4.03 p.m.]
Mr WILL HODGMAN (Franklin - Leader of the Opposition) - The Opposition will
support this legislation which deals with a very serious environmental issue
and a terrible community ill. You would like to think that there have been substantive
improvements in community awareness in recent years. However, that is clearly
not the case. It is a problem that is still all too prevalent. I received a
media release issued by the Federal Minister for the Environment, Malcolm Turnbull,
on 19 February this year which says:
'The volume of litter across Australia has increased by 7 per cent over the
past year according to National Litter Index, part done by the Australian Government.
The Keep Australia Beautiful National Litter Index measures the types and amounts
of litter across Australia and is based on audits conducted between May and
November 2006.'
That says very clearly that across the country the problem is being exacerbated,
not resolved, and I suspect that, sadly, that is also the case in Tasmania.
I am sure we have all had experiences of seeing people litter. I saw a man throw
a cigarette butt out of a car the other day. I followed a car with a trailer
that was spilling garden cuttings everywhere. Each day going to and home from
work I travel the same route as the minister, and indeed the Greens spokesman
on this issue, and I am sure we have all noticed the escalating prevalence of
litter along the Southern Outlet. Whilst it is not anywhere near as bad as some
other places in the world - I lived in England, for example, and the state of
their motorways is a disgrace - we certainly are well behind other countries
where littering is considered to be a terrible offence with very serious sanctions
applied to offenders and where there is a broad cultural attitude, almost a
social more, that treats littering and litterers with complete contempt and
disdain. I was recently in Japan and that is an example of a place that is very
heavily populated but the cities I visited were extraordinarily clean.
Ms Wriedt - Spotless.
Mr WILL HODGMAN - Yes, and you wonder how it is achievable but I think there
is an ingrained culture in the people to treat their public places with a respect
that sadly does not exist in this country. So whilst I am sure that there has
been an improvement and that the vast majority of people are not offenders,
from personal observation and seeing the terrible scar it leaves on our landscapes
and our road sides, we clearly still have some way to go.
From a personal point of view I am very supportive of legislation that is tough
and there are certainly elements of this that appear, on the face of it, to
be quite tough and impose fairly considerable powers on authorised persons.
I am very supportive of tougher sanctions because if we do need to start changing
the culture and people's mindsets on an issue of this type then it is appropriate
we do so through legislative sanction.
I am the last person to be proposing more regulation in our society, but this
is one area where I have a very clear personal bent against those who perpetrate
a very serious environmental offence that degrades both our natural and built
environment. It is something we should make every effort to stamp out. On that
basis I and other members of the State Opposition are supportive of what the
minister is doing in bringing this legislation in, pleasingly after a very extensive
process of consultation with all relevant stakeholders. It touches on other
areas of public policy and other local government authorities and it is important
that they are engaged because there will be ramifications for local councils
in how they manage their affairs and resource their personnel and so on.
If we can apply a better degree of community condemnation to this practice and
appropriately penalise those who litter we will make people more conscious of
the environmental damage littering does. That is a positive thing and if it
changes perceptions of what is acceptable then that is good. It staggers me
that anyone could throw a cigarette butt or anything on the ground, but clearly
it is increasingly prevalent, as the minister said. With small items like cigarette
butts and pieces of paper, I think some people do not even contemplate what
they are doing and just consider it to be acceptable. But it is mindless, very
damaging and needs to be addressed.
The Litter Act obviously provides both a means of enforcing penalties for littering
and an opportunity for the management of areas for which councils and other
entities are responsible. It is encouraging that the act has been developed
in consultation with entities such as councils, stakeholder groups, government
entities and the public, because that in itself would increase public awareness
and support for what the Government is proposing. The fact that the act differentiates
between types of litter and seriousness of a littering offence in three different
circumstances is sensible and appropriate. It seems to be workable albeit somewhat
novel. You need to establish some parameters here and have a penalty that is
appropriate to the circumstances.
We also acknowledge the fact that people have to take greater responsibility
for their actions in hauling trailers with garden clippings and so on. I do
believe there is a misperception that the littering of garden cuttings and greeneries
is not an environmental problem when clearly it is. That is a classic case where
people's mindsets need to be changed and perhaps that will come about as a result
of this legislation, so that is very important as well. We have some issue with
specific provisions and I expect we will be going to Committee to at least touch
on some of those and get some clarification from the minister as to how this
will be properly enforced, how a person's rights are to be protected and how
the specified authorities are to be resourced in order to enforce this legislation
with the kind of practical support and assistance that is necessary to make
it work effectively, as we would all hope it would.
There are some areas where we would appreciate clarification. I understand that
the draft of this bill has been out for some time and in another life it would
have been advantageous to have a briefing. I accept responsibility for not coming
to you, Minister, and I know there has been a very short time available to us,
given that the legislation was tabled this week and we are not sitting anywhere
near as much as we should. So I ask, Minister, for your indulgence in allowing
us to work through some of the provisions to get some clarification on what
is involved here. I do not think I need to go on, other than to flag those issues
that are of interest to us, particularly the resourcing and capacity to enforce
the legislation by councils and courts, the impact it will have on the judiciary
in terms of the workload that may come about as a result of increase prosecutions
and reporting, the powers of authorised persons and how persons can become authorised,
and general enforcement issues.
Without delaying things any further, we place on record our support for the
minister and the Government for bringing in legislation. It will deal with a
matter that should be in no way trivialised. I am sure members of this House
would not think that for a minute, but in the broader community I think there
is an ongoing need for us to impress on people the significance of littering,
the damage it does to our environment and how, in this instance certainly, government
efforts to address it are worthy and valid and should be supported.
[4.12 p.m.]
Mr McKIM (Franklin) - There is no doubt that litter is a serious environmental
problem in Tasmania, in fact right around the world. It is also a blight on
the visual amenity of our island State. I have travelled a bit in different
countries and I can certainly confirm that compared to some countries, particularly
some Asian countries that I have visited, the litter problem in Tasmania is
comparatively insignificant, although I want to stress that I believe it is
a significant environmental problem. I congratulate the Government and members
of the department who have worked hard on the review of the Litter Act. We are
now debating a complete replacement of the existing Litter Act 1973. It has
been a long time coming, but I do not mention that for any other reason than
to say that I do not believe environmental matters receive the funding priority
they deserve from this Government. They certainly have not since Labor came
to power in 1998. Unfortunately, on this Government's recent record in relation
to funding environmental problems and crises, I do not think much is going to
change going forward. I refer to matters including, but not limited to, Macquarie
Island.
Before I go on to the substantive parts of the bill that I want to address I
have a minor gripe, Minister, that this bill was tabled on Tuesday and we are
now debating it 48 hours later. It is a relatively substantial bill. It is not
an amendment bill; it does replace the existing Litter Act and I personally
do not feel that 48 hours is enough time for me to consult on this bill with
the various organisations.
Ms Wriedt - It's in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.
Mr McKIM - It is absolutely in accordance with Standing Orders and I will make
no such assertion to the contrary. I am merely making the point that I represent
a number of individual constituents and NGOs in this place. I know that a lot
of those people and organisations would have submitted to the review of the
Litter Act. You know as well as I do, Minister, that just because you submit
to review does not mean that your submission is either accepted or acted upon.
I would have gratefully accepted the opportunity, given enough time, to ask
the opinion of various individuals and NGOs in relation to this bill.
I would categorise it as a minor gripe that there was such a short time to consult
on this bill. Litter is something that I certainly receive a lot of correspondence
and contact about, and it is something that interests many of my constituents.
Members who have followed my career since I was first elected to this place
in 2002 would know that I have taken up the issue of waste management as a bit
of a personal interest. I travelled to Nova Scotia to see how they manage their
waste there; they manage it a lot better than we do here in Tasmania, and I
will say some more about that later. I would have appreciated, Minister, the
opportunity to consult with a number of individuals, community organisations
and non-government organisations.
The debate does, however, give me the opportunity to reflect very briefly on
someone who has become, since I was elected in 2002, probably my favourite correspondent
in a professional context, and that is Mr Jack Brown from Huonville. Those who
spend much time driving around the Huon Highway will probably know Jack by sight
but not by name. He is the guy in the orange fluoro vest who spends a large
amount of his life picking up litter from the verges down between Huonville
and Dover in most instances, although occasionally he has been known to go as
far north as Grove. Jack is a regular correspondent, and I very much enjoy his
letters. I think it is fair to say he is no fan of the current Government, particularly
on the issue of log trucks keeping him awake at night, which is something on
which he corresponds with me regularly. I want to place on the record my appreciation
of Jack's efforts in keeping the verges clean between Grove and Dover. He does
a sterling job and I believe that in some weeks he is out there for the bulk
of the day, every day of the week, picking up the litter. I want to place on
the record my appreciation, and I am sure the appreciation of all members of
this House, of the work that Jack does.
If I have not made it clear, we will be supporting this bill. As far as it goes,
I think it is a good bill. I will make a request that we go into Committee because
there are a few issues relating to specific clauses that I would not mind exploring.
I often say this when we are debating bills in this Parliament. It is one thing
to come into this place and to legislate to create offences; it is another thing
entirely as to how you enforce that law out on the ground. Litter is something
that I believe that comment particularly pertains to. I will probably explore
in Committee the matter of authorised people. I want make it clear that adequate
enforcement of the act will actually need a satisfactory level of funding in
my view. That is something that I mention in relation to many areas in which
we legislate, including loading extra tasks onto the long-suffering Ombudsman's
office, which we do on a regular basis. If we are going to create extra work
for people, we ought at least to have the decency to adequately fund the organisations
of which they are a part. I do not think the current Government has a great
record in funding environmental initiatives or, for that matter, in doing enough
to protect Tasmania's environment.
Litter is a serious problem and I think that this bill is a great improvement
on the current Litter Act. However, to a large degree it addresses the symptoms
of littering and not the causes of littering. In my view, and I have said this
many times, the single greatest contribution parliaments could make to reducing
litter would be introducing container deposit legislation. With the indulgence
of the House, I will just quickly explain what I mean. Members would know that
South Australia has CDL. The South Australian model was primarily created as
a litter reduction device. It works on the pretty sound philosophical basis
that if you attach a value to something, people are less likely to chuck it
away. In South Australia I think you pay eight cents extra for containers, including
soft drink cans, for example, and when you redeem them - in other words, when
you hand them back - you get five cents. The three-cent differential is an administrative
fee and is not intended to be a profit out of the transaction.
There are many other models I have seen around the world, including Nova Scotia
where there is a larger differential. In Nova Scotia it is a 10-cent deposit
and you redeem five cents, and that is not an administrative fee. That is actually
a fund-raising measure that is quarantined out of consolidated revenue in Nova
Scotia. It goes in the form of financial carrots to the Nova Scotian equivalent
of Tasmanian municipalities if they can demonstrate adequate landfill management
practices. Over there they have the Resource Recovery Fund Board, which was
set up by the Parliament, and it administers the funds raised by their container
deposit levy and allocates that money out to municipalities which meet agreed
targets in relation to landfill management. I am a big fan of container deposit
levies. I am well on the record as making it clear that I believe we should
introduce a container deposit levy in this State.
Minister, while I am on that subject you will recall the Environment, Resources
and Development Committee inquiry into waste management. Subsequent to the report
being issued by that committee I asked you, I think in the Launceston sitting
last year, whether you intended to introduce any of the recommendations. I think
you said that you would ask your department to provide you with a response to
the committee's report. I wonder whether you would let me know in your response
whether you have received that from the department. I just mention it in passing
for my interest; I am not intending to make a song and dance about it.
Other matters that I wanted to raise are the definition of 'litter' in clause
3, the offences which the bill creates in clause 9, and the use of the word
'deposit' in clause 9 in relation to the creation of the offence of littering.
I will, Minister, be seeking to explore what 'deposit' actually means in clause
9.
Ms Wriedt - It's defined in the interpretation
Mr McKIM - We will explore that a little bit in clause 3. One of the contexts
within which I wanted to explore what 'deposit' actually means is the issue
of balloon releases. Balloon releases are, in my understanding, illegal in some
other Australian jurisdictions, including New South Wales. My understanding
is that in New South Wales the then Premier, Bob Carr, was prevailed upon by
a group of schoolchildren to introduce legislation relating to mass balloon
releases. I remind members that a similar bill was introduced into this place
in 2001 by Ms Putt and was actually debated on 24 April 2002. Ms Putt was prevailed
upon by pupils of the Sorell school who belonged to a group called The Planet
Protectors. They wrote to her asking for her help to ban balloon releases in
Tasmania. This came about as a result of six students of Sorell school going
to an environment conference. My word, isn't it great to see young people -
and I know the minister will agree as ex-Minister for Education and currently
Minister for the Environment - taking responsibility for matters such as this,
taking it upon themselves to become involved in public policy-making. Six students
from the Sorell school went to an environment conference in Adelaide in 2001.
At the conference they met Bethany Henderson, who campaigned against balloon
releases in New South Wales. Bethany must have been the person who prevailed
upon Bob Carr, because the students of the Sorell school, in writing to Ms Putt,
said that they met Bethany Henderson, who made it clear that the New South Wales
Government has now passed legislation to stop mass balloon releases. They asked
Ms Putt to help them to make it law in Tasmania. Ms Putt to her credit tabled
a bill, the Environment Protection (Release of Balloons) Bill 2001, and had
it debated in this place.
The bill was voted down by the combined vote of the Labor and Liberal parties,
as so many impressive environmental initiatives are. Interestingly, during the
second reading the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, who
at the time was David Llewellyn, said - and I quote from the Hansard of 24 April
2002:
'We made an announcement about the fact that there will be a review of the Litter
Act and it was intended that we look at this question for implementation within
the review of the act. I have to say I believe it to be the appropriate way
to deal with the matter and, if there are to be amendments along the lines that
the member has presented in this bill, they ought to be incorporated in the
Litter Act.'
I ask the minister whether or not this bill is intended to and will in fact
cover the release of balloons. Depending on the response, if any, I get from
the minister we might explore that matter in the clauses. On a careful reading
of some of the clauses it is not clear to me whether this bill applies to the
mass releases of balloons. I guess it depends on what we understand to mean
'deposit or 'put' or 'cause'. I will be arguing that the bill does cover mass
balloon releases, but we will wait to see how the minister responds.
I think that I have covered the matters I wanted to cover in the second reading.
This has been a long time coming but we welcome its arrival in the House. The
fact that it has been a long time coming makes the haste with which this matter
is being dealt with by this House a little bit difficult to understand. The
review process was going on for a long time. I can see puzzlement on Ms Singh's
face. I do not think she was in here earlier when I was saying that this is
relatively complex legislation which is of a high level of interest to a number
of my constituents and non-government organisations, and no doubt hers. I think
that 48 hours was not long enough for me to consult on this bill. I had not
seen it until it was tabled in the House, which happened on Tuesday, probably
about 52 hours ago now. I do not regard two days as anywhere near long enough
to consult on this bill to see whether all those people who submitted to the
review of the Litter Act were happy with the results of that consultation process.
Be that as it may, I find myself here debating it. As the minister pointed out
when I raised this in my contribution, there is no contravention of Standing
Orders and I certainly acknowledge that.
Ms Singh - Are you supporting it?
Mr McKIM - Yes, I have indicated that we will be supporting it. Ms Singh would
know, if she has followed the Greens' strategies in this Parliament, that we
always support things even if we think they are a minor improvement. I am not
making that allegation in relation to this bill. We will support acts that we
do not think go far enough but are still an improvement on the current situation.
That has been our regular practice since I have been in this House and it is
something that I intend to continue. We are not about being obstructionist in
relation to legislation. Of course we will vote against legislation that we
think it is a retrograde step and we are proud to do so.
Ms Singh - This is certainly not retrograde.
Mr McKIM - No, and I completely agree with the member's comment.
I have said everything I wanted to say on the second reading. I thank the minister
for bringing this bill into the Parliament, and I look forward to exploring
in further detail a couple of the matters that I have raised when we deal with
the committee stage.
[4.35 p.m.]
Ms SINGH (Denison) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I am also very pleased to rise to support
this bill, the Litter Bill 2007, and to put on the record my support for keeping
our suburbs, waterways, parks, bushlands and beaches et cetera as clean as possible.
Litter is a huge environmental issue, and it is important that people become
aware that it is the responsibility of everyone in the community to keep our
cities and environment as clean as possible.
It is also about making people feel conscious, as I think some other members
in this House have said, about their actions. We still see people occasionally
chucking their fish and chip wrappers or cigarette butts onto the ground as
though they could not care less, because it is something they have always done.
Hopefully, with the introduction of this Litter Bill, it will place some kind
of new commitment on those actions. I think by updating measures for control
and management of litter, and replacing the existing Litter Act 1973, the State
Government is trying to make our environment, our suburbs, waterways and parks
et cetera as clean as possible.
One good example of that is Clean up Australia Day, which we celebrate and participate
in every year. I was pleased that I had the opportunity this year to launch
Clean up Australia Day. As you probably know, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a day
that has become an iconic event with thousands of Australians venturing into
their local community to collect tonnes of litter.
Litter is not only unsightly, it has a real impact on our environment, as I
am sure all members in this House would agree. While many Tasmanians participate
each year in Clean up Australia Day events, litter remains very prevalent in
the local environment. Some of the most commonly littered items in Tasmania
are cigarette butts, plastic food bags, bottle tops and cigarette packets. There
are also many other items, but the prevalence of cigarette butts is one that
personally annoys me, perhaps because a lot of people do not see it as litter.
They are made of a substance that is very hard to break down and stays in our
waters and in our local environment for a very, very long time. It is also very
unsightly, so I am very pleased that this Litter Bill picks up on that because
cigarette butts are one of the most commonly littered items in our community,
as many members would be aware.
Last year I had the opportunity to participate on behalf of the Minister for
the Environment in the industry-funded 'Do the Right Thing' campaign, which
I think many members in this House will remember. I will not sing the jingle.
The 'Do the Right Thing' campaign of the 1970s and 1980s was one of the most
successful campaigns in Australian history, which -
Members - Go on - sing for us!
Ms SINGH - (singing) 'Do the right thi-ing', there you go - I have sung it!
Members laughing .
Ms SINGH - That campaign was very successful campaign in the 70s and 80s and
it was responsible for a 70 per cent reduction in litter. So while we may laugh
at my singing, the singing by the professionals who did the jingle did a very
good job, because it went down in the community in a big way. We know of lot
of people watch ads on television and the jingles end up drumming their way
into our brains sometimes whether we like it or not. This was one that did have
a very positive effect on many people in the community. Last November, I joined
Jenny Pickles, manager of the Food and Grocery Council, in a new 'Do the Right
Thing' advertising campaign which was developed to highlight many of the State's
iconic locations while showcasing Tasmanians placing their litter in the bin.
According to the 2004 National Littering Behaviour Study 7, Hobart's rating
has been lifted from one of the worst to the equal second-best capital in the
country, so that is a campaign that has worked very well. I think that if you
look around in Hobart at the moment you will see on a number of rubbish bins
the sticker saying 'Do the Right Thing'. That campaign last November was a really
good example of a number of groups working together, dedicated organisations
putting forward solutions to help reduce litter.
Having said that, cleaning up our environment and ensuring there is no litter
is a whole-of-community responsibility. It is not just the responsibility of
this act or organisations like the Food and Grocery Council who put efforts
into campaigns such as 'Do the Right Thing', it is everybody's responsibility.
It comes down to the individual and it is those individuals that do not do the
right thing whom we address in this bill today. We recognise that they need
to start doing the right thing.
I just wanted to pick up on a couple of things in the bill. One of those is
the opportunity for the public to report littering offences. This is a really
good opportunity because I know as members of parliament we do get constituents
who contact us and say, 'I saw such and such a person hooning in the street
in their car' or 'I saw someone committing some kind of incivility in social
behaviour', but by the time they call our office the event has passed. It is
very hard for us as members to do anything when it is something that has occurred
in the past and we do not have the identity of the person.
The actions the public can take to report littering offences in this act as
soon as they see them will enable it to be dealt with on the spot, getting an
outcome that will be for the benefit of our local environment. I think the minister
in her second reading speech has gone through what this bill is all about so
I will not go over that, other than to stress my interest and dislike of littering
full stop but especially cigarette butt litter which is so common and yet not
regarded as importantly as it should be in our local community.
Like other members I have travelled in various countries and some get it right
and some are really quite disgraceful. I think that we, as a State, want to
be a leading example of getting it right and I think this bill goes quite a
way, especially compared to the old 1973 bill, in trying to clean up our local
environment and ensure that we are giving a message to future generations and
to visitors who come to Tasmania. We welcome visitors who continue to come to
Tasmania to do the right thing, and to look after all parts of our environment
- bushlands, waterways, beaches, parks, streets and so on. Mr Deputy Speaker,
it gives me pleasure to support the Litter Bill.
[4.45 p.m.]
Ms WRIEDT (Franklin - Minister for Tourism, Arts and the Environment) - I thank
members for their contributions and their support for this important bill. On
reflecting on the comments from the member, I have say it did not occur to me
to offer you a briefing on this; perhaps I should have and I apologise for that.
Whilst it is quite a weighty bill in one sense, I would like to think it is
relatively straightforward. It honestly did not occur to me, so there was certainly
no intent to keep you in the dark about it. I thought it was pretty straightforward
and hopefully we will demonstrate that as we go into Committee. Normally if
it is something that I think will be controversial or complex, I offer a briefing.
I would say to any member of this House that if I bring forward any other legislation
in future and I have not offered a briefing but you require one, please ask
me. We are only too happy to arrange one.
I think the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of what the impact
might be on the workload of the judiciary. We would envisage that many of the
offences under this act will be dealt with by infringement notices and will
not end up within the court system, much as traffic offences are dealt with.
Unless something is disputed it would not end up before the courts.
I think it was the Deputy Leader of the Greens who commented that it is good
legislation but the proof of the pudding will be how we enforce it. I believe
that what has been developed is certainly workable. Some ideas canvassed in
the discussion paper we released were clearly not practicable and therefore
enforceable. There was one provision in particular which I found interesting,
the offence of aggravated littering. I did seek some guidance on this because
in Victoria, New South Wales and the ACT they have the offence of aggravated
littering. It is littering which could lead to danger or harm. I think some
of this stemmed from New South Wales where a few years ago somebody deliberately
placed some syringes under some newspapers on Bondi Beach. They were sticking
up so that people would step on them and they would deliberately cause harm.
It could be that somebody who has a gripe against their neighbour breaks bottles
at the end of their driveway.
Mr McKim - Or that goose who let fish oil out of his truck between Dover and
Hobart about two months ago, and caused an accident on the Southern Outlet every
day of the week.
Ms WRIEDT - Yes, I do remember being caught every day that week.
Mr McKim - So was I.
Ms WRIEDT - It was considered too difficult to prove. How could you determine
whether it was intentional aggravated littering? The syringe example is obviously
very extreme, but otherwise how do you prove that harm was intended. For example,
somebody who has a gripe against their neighbour and decides to grab some bottles
and smash them at the end of their driveway in the hope that they then damage
their car or walk over them would be picked up under other acts for trying to
harm another person's property. The Police Offences Act and the Criminal Code
would actually pick up those sorts of offences.
We did look also at higher penalties for littering with lit cigarette butts
as opposed to unlit cigarette butts. Once again, that was something that would
be very difficult to prove, particularly if you were talking about the Litter
Hotline. If somebody travelling in a car reported somebody throwing out a cigarette
butt, they could not in that split second work out whether it was lit or unlit.
Indeed, if that cigarette butt was lit and started a fire then one could be
prosecuted under the Fire Service Act as well.
So we have tried to come up with legislation that is workable. It will be implemented,
or enforced, I should say, by a number of people. Tasmania Police officers are
automatically authorised persons under this act. Councils will also be able
to deem authorised people under the act. This may be something that the Hobart
City Council or other councils who have parking inspectors may wish to consider.
They may wish to consider making their parking inspectors authorised officers
for the purposes of this act because that would mean a very high on-the-ground
presence. Those parking officers could then issue on-the-spot infringement notices.
Once this legislation passes the Parliament, I will be writing to local councils,
particularly those which have parking inspectors, making that very suggestion
and urging them to consider it as a possibility. We will also see Parks and
Wildlife rangers as authorised officers under this act so that they can deal
with offences within national parks.
In terms of enforcement, I think there will be a strong on-the-ground presence
right across the State. Combined with the Litter Hotline, I would hope it would
act as a significant deterrent to those people who seek to scar our landscape
and clean environment with litter.
Some $45 000 from the Living Environment program has been set aside for this,
predominantly to set up the Litter Hotline but also to run an education program
for the public prior to this act coming into force. I think that will be very
important. It has already received a great deal of publicity, not only in Tasmania
but also, surprisingly, as far away as the Gold Coast. I had an ABC Radio interview
from the Gold Coast this morning. They are interested in the provisions of this
act because they do not have anything like it in Queensland. They think it might
be useful for them. That money, we anticipate, would be recouped within a couple
of years of the Litter Hotline being in operation.
I did anticipate that container deposit legislation might be raised during the
course of this debate. Yes, I will be bringing to the House a response on behalf
of Government to the matters raised in the Environment, Resources and Development
Committee report. Tasmania has been, over a period of time, a strong supporter
of a national approach to container deposit legislation and other extended producer
responsibility schemes. It was, in fact, through the Environment Protection
Heritage Council that the Government supported moves to investigate a range
of mechanisms that would enable us to increase the recovery rate. I think the
target is about 65 per cent. A second covenant was recently negotiated -
Mr McKim - Hopefully it will lead to better outcomes.
Ms WRIEDT - We certainly share the views of the Boomerang Alliance that for
companies to meet their targets for recycling under the first national packaging
covenant it really does call for stronger measures and threats of legislation
to ensure that those targets in the second covenant are reached.
I think it is only fair to give them an opportunity to reach -
Mr McKim - Some might argue they were given an opportunity in the first covenant,
Minister.
Ms WRIEDT - Yes, it is a little bit like the plastic bags issue. It is one of
those issues we will be discussing. We have an EPHC meeting in June and that
is back on the agenda again. I would argue that the retailers have been given
a fairly significant time frame and opportunity to reduce the use of plastic
bags. I have not seen anything too innovative coming from the retailers, other
than selling bags at a $1 a pop.
Mr McKim - It might be nearly time for a levy or a ban, Minister. What do you
think?
Ms WRIEDT - We will be having a ban - that has been nationally agreed. The question
is how to get there. We want a national levy.
Mr McKim - We could just ban them.
Ms WRIEDT - There will be a ban coming into place as of - I always get this
date wrong - 1st January 2009.
Mr McKim - A legislative ban?
Ms WRIEDT - Yes, that is the agreement of all. That decision was confirmed by
my predecessor two to three years ago. It has been on the agenda for a long
time. In the year that I have held the portfolio, in the two EPHC meetings that
I have been to this has been on the agenda and we have confirmed and reconfirmed
our commitment to that all around the country. I continue to find it frustrating
that no suitable alternatives have been found.
Mr McKim - To the bags?
Ms WRIEDT - To the bags. There does not seem to be anything as yet that is a
workable, practical alternative as far as members of the public are concerned.
So it will be interesting to see the way the discussions go and maybe, given
that this is the Federal election year, this is the time for us to up the ante
in relation to a national levy. I do not want to see members of the public financially
penalised at point of sale, as in Victoria where they pay about 19 cents a bag
extra. They put in that specific legislation. I would rather see a national
levy where it is the retailers who have to pay, not the consumers, and that
acts as a disincentive.
Mr McKim - A consumer levy worked well in Ireland. But, Minister, you haven't
been dissuaded by the Productivity Commission's report from last year, I hope.
Ms WRIEDT - From the work that the EPHC commissioned - and I cannot remember
off the top of my head the name of the group that did the work - the thing that
struck me about it was that it was a very narrow approach, just looking at the
economic issues as far as the retail industry was concerned. It was not looking
at the social and environmental issues. I think that was because they found
it much more difficult to deal with. I will watch that with interest, because
I do want to see some movement on that and it has been a very frustrating debate
so far.
Mr McKim - Yes, for many of us.
Ms WRIEDT - What worries me about it is that if you have a levy - and we continue
to differ on this - I continue to get advice that you cannot have a State-imposed
levy on plastic bags in any event.
Mr McKim - But you can have a State CDL and the committee did get advice from
the Solicitor-General about that.
Ms WRIEDT - Yes, but I am advised that you cannot have a specific levy on plastic
bags. In any event, I would not like to see a levy that penalises the consumer,
because it is the low-income earners who will then be penalised. They may not
be prepared to make an investment in $15 or $20 worth of calico bags or alternative
types of bags, and then every time they do their shopping they end up paying
an extra couple of dollars because of a levy.
So there are some difficulties with that and I do not think that the work that
has been done to date has addressed those issues adequately. It appears there
is no proper alternative. I did have a bag sent to me recently, and we had seen
one last year at EPHC, which was made from potato starch. It feels weird, a
little like latex, and they break down in water. We tried it in the office.
You put them into water and they break down, they go through a slimy stage,
which is not very appealing, a bit like egg-whites, and you are left with a
murky soup when it is put in hot water. I do not know what happens if you are
carrying something in those bags and it leaks or it rains. If you are in a tropical
environment and it is warm rain you are probably in big trouble. I do not know
that that area has been properly developed anywhere in the world in terms of
low-cost alternatives.
The EPHC is still looking at a range of measures in relation to container deposit
legislation, including a national CDL scheme. During the second covenant if
they are unsuccessful in reaching the targets by what is anticipated as a mid-term
review - and I think that is next year - then we will have some mechanisms with
which to act. We do need to exercise a little caution. I know South Australia
is held up all the time as the model, being the only other State that has CDL,
but we need to consider the impacts that CDL would have on kerbside recycling.
Kerbside recycling came in after CDL in South Australia, but you would be doing
the reverse in other States. You would not want to jeopardise a very good kerbside
recycling system if CDL came in. There is some debate about the economics of
it and whether they could be -
Mr McKim - Mostly industry-led, I would have to say, Minister.
Ms WRIEDT - There is that view of it as well. What would the impact be on the
public? Would they disregard their kerbside recycling altogether? I do not know
that we have adequately investigated that, but these are the sorts of things
that could hopefully be looked at if we get a national approach to this, and
will be looked at in the work the EPHC is doing. I am looking forward to that
work progressing because we need to look at the best option for Tasmania. It
is fairly complex. That was one of the issues raised in that report and I will
bring in a response on behalf of the Government to the Environment, Resources
and Development Committee report.
Whilst there is not a specific clause in the bill on balloon releases, I believe
that this bill would cover large-scale balloon releases. If you look at some
of the definitions that we mentioned earlier about depositing litter, it does
use the word 'blows' or 'descends'. We do not have 'ascends'; it can 'descend'
or 'blow', but it would blow upwards.
Mr McKim - What goes up must come down.
Ms WRIEDT - Exactly. I cannot recall in recent years there being any large-scale
balloon releases in Tasmania. I think it is less a part of our culture than
in other States. I know Sydney used to release balloons for everything, but
it is not something that has been a large part of festivals in Tasmania. My
understanding is that in terms of the litter that is being picked up balloons
are really not figuring as a major item. But they would be picked up in this.
I will just give you one example and you could argue whether it is appropriate
or not because the end result is the same, but somebody towards the end of last
year who was close to my family passed away. Just before he did my children
went in to visit him in hospital, and they took him a couple of balloons because
he was not able to be at my daughter's birthday party. When he passed away those
balloons - there were only two of them - were still in his hospital room. They
were inflated, and it was the request of his wife that we take them to his funeral
and then to the cemetery, and then my children cut the string of the balloons.
It was kind of symbolic for them as young children, and part of the funeral
service.
I have to say, there are probably these very small exceptions. We could not
do it with doves - it would not have been the same, but it was all to do with
that. I guess there are probably one or two, and they are certainly not large-scale
balloon releases. Had this act been in force we would have put that up as a
defence if there had been any complaint in relation to it.
Perhaps I should have asked a question by way of interjection during the contribution
by the member for Franklin, Mr McKim. You did say that perhaps you would make
this act go further. I think you intimated that perhaps there were ways it could
go further. I am genuinely interested in your views on how you would envisage
it could go further. Apart from those few situations such as aggravated littering
and higher penalties for lit cigarette butts that I have mentioned, I am not
sure how we could really take it much further, but I would certainly be interested
in your views on that.
No doubt we will have some further discussions during the committee stage. I
just echo the comments of my colleague, the member for Denison, Ms Singh, in
saying that litter is everybody's responsibility. I think one of the things
we do very well in our schools is teach children from a very early age, perhaps
when they are within the child-care sector, that you do not litter. Schools
and child-care centres enforce that very well. While some children will litter
in schools, the schools are very good at enforcing children picking up and that
sort of stuff up. I know it is certainly enforced in the school my children
attend, and schools are very clean and tidy places.
Unfortunately, something happens when people get older and they develop a careless
attitude about the communities in which they live and they litter. Quite frankly,
I would not care less if we did not raise any money from infringement notices
and penalties applied under this act, because if we did not raise any money
it would mean that nobody was littering, and that would be great.
The reality is there will always be some people within the community who will
have a careless attitude about their community and the environment in which
they live, with the resulting potential harm not only to the environment but
also to safety. In fact, somebody was relaying a story to me just the other
day about being on a motorbike, travelling at high speed, following a mini-van,
and a lot of fast-food wrappers were thrown out of the windows of the van as
it went further up the highway and one of those actually flew onto the motor
cyclist's helmet. He was travelling at 100 kilometres an hour, temporarily blinded
by a fast-food wrapper attached to the motorcycle helmet. Now that could have
ended up in a very serious accident, and I think those are the sorts of things
that are perhaps overlooked in this debate about the harm that can result from
seemingly small things.
I think cigarette butts are the case in point, particularly in high fire season,
and that is why I am confident that the litter hotline will actually be used.
I think that the culture in Tasmania will show that if you give Tasmanians an
opportunity to tell authorities when something illegal is occurring they will
take that opportunity.
In fact the Mayor of Glenorchy, Adriana Taylor, who spoke about the legislation
the other day after I had tabled it indicated that at the moment people ring
up councils and make complaints about other people littering. Councils have
not had the power to do anything about it so in fact I guess there have been
pseudo-litter hotlines set up in councils right around the State but they have
been powerless to act. Indeed very few people have been issued with infringement
notices in relation to litter under the act that we are seeking to replace now.
Every time I have done an interview on this the one question that journalists
have asked is whether I think anyone is actually going to use the Litter Hotline.
There are provisions in this to safeguard against vexatious complaints so that
if somebody has a serious case of road rage and wants to get back at you they
can take down your registration number and ring up and say that you tossed something
out of your car window but they need to be prepared to follow that up by a written
statement.
If you are following a car and you see somebody littering you would take their
registration number. You then have two options. You can ring the Litter Hotline
and that number will actually go through to a Service Tasmania number. They
will send you out a form or refer you to the web site. You will be able to fill
that in electronically or you will get it manually if you do not have that sort
of technology available to you. You then have to make a signed statement about
what you witnessed. You also have to be prepared to front up to court if the
matter goes before court.
So if it is disputed by the operator of the vehicle then you have to be prepared
to go to court, swear under oath about what you saw. If someone has road rage
and they are prepared to go to that extent then they risk being fined or even
jailed for, I think it is called, false swearing. Can you be jailed for false
swearing? If they end up in court, it is called false swearing under the act
as I understand it.
Mr Will Hodgman - Why didn't you require the statement to be sworn?
Ms WRIEDT - It will be a sworn statement, a statutory declaration.
Mr McKim - It is just a written statement, a signed written report.
Ms WRIEDT - I will get some further advice as we go into Committee on that because
my understanding is that it is a sworn statement. We have modelled this on the
Victorian system. We have those safeguards in place to prevent anyone trying
to take advantage of this and getting revenge on their neighbour or someone
else that they are perhaps in dispute with and we do not want that to occur.
We only want genuine people to be affected by this. Hopefully that has answered
some of the queries. We will go into Committee and, you never know, we might
even be able to finish this this evening, which would be terrific, so that the
upper House can consider it. If not I am happy to continue this at a later date.
Bill read the second time.