Page 3327 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 2005

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

entrances of their establishments. A number of those businesses have indicated to me in recent times that storage of beer kegs has now been classified as littering by some well-meaning but perhaps overzealous employees of the territory government. This is an area where I think some measure of commonsense needs to be applied. These kegs are normally stored in back alleys that are, for all intents and purposes, for business use only. But it is since the introduction of the Litter Act that the kegs have been targeted and owners threatened with fines.

Apparently, owners of these establishments have met with officials from urban services in an attempt to come up with a solution. I am aware that at least one of the major breweries has increased their pick-ups to twice a week, but I think we need to temper our enforcement of some of these arrangements with a degree of reality, instead of creating an unnecessary impost on businesses and utilising an act that is really designed for the purpose of ensuring that our streets and public places are in a tidy state. The act is designed to ensure that people do not take a reckless attitude towards the disposal of litter. A number of these establishments simply have no space within their properties where they can store kegs. From my observation, I do not believe this situation poses either a safety risk to anyone in our community or reduces the amenity of an area that is used primarily for waste disposal. It makes no sense to impose fines and inflexible regulations on businesses that are attempting to do the right thing. I would hope, on that last issue, that the minister would try and solve that problem, because a legitimate concern is being expressed. I support the proposed amendment.

DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.53): I rise to say that the Greens have no concerns with this amendment; it seems to be perfectly logical and, in fact, probably necessary. I am unsure as to whether Mr Pratt’s amendment adds anything to the government’s amendment but I will listen to Mr Hargreaves’s response and vote accordingly.

MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (10.53): I think Mr Pratt’s amendment is necessary; and I know that the minister is saying it is covered in section 17. However, I would like to point out to members that section 17 (3) on page 3 of the Litter Amendment Bill that was tabled states that, “The person may ask the authorised person to produce his or her identity card for inspection by the person.” I suggest Mr Pratt’s legislation does tighten up this requirement.

I believe it should be done as a matter of course. When a person approaches another person to say, “Look, you are illegally doing something wrong, ” that person may not be in uniform so may not be easily identifiable as a ranger; he may be whoever. I think that officer, who is authorised to act on behalf of the territory, should provide that ID without prompting. It should be a matter of course. It should not be incumbent upon the person being sought after to ask—or may ask—the authorised person to produce his or her identity card. I really do not think that is good enough. I think that, in this day and age, people in positions of authority need to show ID before they ask somebody to do something. That is the one thing I would say. I certainly support Mr Pratt’s amendment. I do not think it is amending for the sake of amending; I think it is tightening a loophole in the legislation. I am sure that, if members think about it, they will see that it is quite sensible and reasonable.

Referring to the minister’s tabling statement or presentation speech, it is regrettable that the government spends more than $1.6 million a year on cleaning up illegally dumped

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .