Page 5894 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Currently, the Litter Act is being reviewed by the waste management section, a very active and enthusiastic group of public servants who advised all the residents of North Canberra of the fantastic reopening of the Ainslie Transfer Station last week. They are looking at the general penalty of $250, which they think probably does need some review. It has been there for quite some time. They are also looking at increasing the on-the-spot fines for littering from the current $25 to perhaps $50. They are looking at things such as advertising flyers and whether they should be dealt with as litter. That is the thing people often find stuffed under the windscreen-wiper when they return to their car.
The Act is due for review and people are going through that process. I suggest that it is better to await a general review of the Act than to create this fairly novel idea of a subjective test as to whether a $250 penalty or a $2,000 penalty should apply.
MR STEFANIAK (12.23): Mr Collaery reminds me that Professor Whalan did not have a problem with this. It is a fairly short Bill. I have had a quick look at the principal Act, which in section 3 currently has a penalty of $250 for littering. That remains for the normal type of litter, and what Mr Jensen is seeking to do here is to create an additional offence if the litter strewed around is likely to cause injury to persons or damage to property.
I suppose an Act such as this is difficult to enforce at times in that you actually have to catch someone in the act of littering, or have people give very good evidence of who is doing it, to succeed in a prosecution. Nevertheless, what Mr Jensen aims to do is to put some realistic penalty on people who wantonly strew bottles, be they broken or otherwise, in areas where people can be seriously injured, especially children. The genesis of this, I think, was some young children in Kambah being injured by glass strewn around by some hoons in a kids play park. That is certainly not an uncommon occurrence, although in terms of people actually being caught for it there may be some problems.
I was on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee with Mr Collaery and I certainly cannot recall Professor Whalan having any problems with this amendment. Invariably, on a daily basis the courts are called upon to exercise their discretion and work out for themselves what is reasonable. I have practised in courts more than anyone else in this place, and I do not think a court would have any huge problem in interpreting Mr Jensen's amendment.
I am pleased to hear that the Attorney, in his capacity as Minister for Urban Services, is conducting a review of the Litter Act, because this is only one small amendment dealing with one rather specific type of litter. Certainly, the Act is in need of review, and I would hope to see whichever government is in power next year bringing
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .