Local Government Law Reform Bill

I have pleasure in speaking on Part 2, which concerns the Litter Act 1979. Just before I talk about this specific legislation, I will take the chance—which I did not previously because of the dog microchipping part—to say how much I have enjoyed working on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am new to the select committee, and I have been very impressed by the quality of the official advice we have had. I have also been very impressed with the committee’s work ethic, and in this specific case it has had to do a heck of a lot of work to cover this omnibus bill in a very short space of time. How well the committee has done that has exceeded my expectations—ably led by the committee secretariat of Beth and co. I want to put that on record.

When I walk around the city with my not-to-be-microchipped dog, there are a couple of things that very much get my goat: litter and graffiti. In this case I will specifically talk about litter. “Pride” is a wonderful word. When people have pride in their city they talk about it and become absolutely positive about it. Is it not disappointing when we see that people have unashamedly littered the street and ignored the receptacles that are in place, and have just abused the pride that others have in their city? Those people have no concern at all about the mess they leave—in this case, on the Wellington City streets, but I am sure what I am saying will strike a chord with most towns and cities in New Zealand.

People who have no pride litter, and they need to be totally held to account for that littering. Part 2 is a very good opportunity for Parliament to send a very strong message to those who litter that they jolly well should not, because, goodness me, if they go down that path it will cost them a heck of a lot. So I was very, very pleased to be part of the select committee that has totally endorsed the opportunity to lift the fines, in particular. The fines that are put in place via this legislation are quite considerable, and send a very clear message.

At the same time, I also take the opportunity to applaud those city councils out there that spend a lot of energy and time on picking up and cleaning up after people who just make a jolly mess. A clear message is being sent to those who litter that we will not tolerate it, through the very significant lift in fines. In many cases we are increasing tenfold the fine we are looking to apply to those people. That applies not just to those who litter the streets but also to those who dump their rubbish over the fence. Unfortunately, many people do dump rubbish over the fence or drive out into the wilderness and throw it down a bank, which is a disgraceful course of action that, unfortunately, far too many take. I assure members now that clause 18 in Part 2 specifically addresses those people, and very much lifts the fine for those who deposit or leave litter in a public place, or on private land without the consent of its occupier.

In the select committee we discussed the need to lift the fine in this area, because as waste becomes more of a topic of conversation, and as waste minimisation becomes very much where we need to head in the future, there will be a temptation by some to throw their rubbish over the fence, or, on the way to the tip, to have it accidentally fall off the back of their trolley, car, truck, and so on, and unashamedly leave it. In section 15 of the Litter Act that we are referring to there will be a fine not exceeding $20,000 for body corporates, or $5,000 for individuals. That should very much be a blockage to those people wanting to throw rubbish away in that manner.

One of the other things I would like to take the opportunity to talk about in relation to Part 2 is liability and prosecution. I will let the Minister of Local Government attend to that, because it is quite an important piece of the legislation.

I sense the debate on this part is reaching a conclusion, and I thought it appropriate to take a short call. I want to echo the comments of the member Mark Blumsky. Part 2 does deal very effectively with the blight on many of our communities of litter—particularly broken glass. I suppose that if I have a favourite target it is that one.

The tenfold increase in fine from $750 to a $7,500 maximum is a good move. It sends all the right messages, and I think it is something that members have been universally supportive of. On the matter the member was just getting to, I agree that toughening up on issues of liability makes it much clearer for local authorities.

All in all, this part of the bill enjoys wide support from members, and I am sure we are keen to see it enacted and for progress to be made.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to insert new clause 17A be agreed to.