Nile Supports Waste Removal Bill
The Rev Fred Nile, leader of the Christian Democratic Party has supported legislation that will empower Local Councils to ensure residents do not turn their premises into a rubbish dum.
“The Christian Democratic Party supports the Local Government Amendment (Waste Removal Orders) Bill 2006. We support the object of the bill, which is to amend the Local Government Act 1993 to allow local councils to give orders, known as waste removal orders, to owners or occupiers of residential premises for the removal or disposal of waste on those premises, or to refrain from keeping waste on those premises, where the waste is a threat to public health or the health of an individual.
As honourable members know, in some serious cases councils have been frustrated in their attempts to clean up properties. Some of those cases have resulted in lengthy proceedings in the Land and Environment Court. One of those cases involved the Waverley Council, which had tried for 17 years to get the owner of residential premises in Bondi to address the unhealthy condition of the premises, a condition that posed a health risk to neighbours, the public and land owners. Of course, piles of rubbish attract rats and other vermin. In the Waverley case the rubbish built up to the eaves of the building and spilt out onto the pavement”, Rev Fred Nile stated.
“The council issued an order under its existing powers to clean up the premises, but its decision to issue the order was appealed to the Land and Environment Court. There were eight hearings in that appeal process before the court recognised that the order could be validly issued and that the clean-up was required. The court then gave the land owner a further two months to clean up the land herself. It was only when she failed to do so that the court allowed the council to enter the property and clean it up. The problem was the length of time, and the expense, involved in the court proceedings. I understand the council spent about $27,000 on its latest clean-up of the premises and another $30,000 of ratepayers' money on legal costs in the Land and Environment Court defending its decision to issue the orders. Personally, I would find it difficult to support the decisions of the court in that case. Other similar examples have occurred at Manly.
This is a very practical bill. Every effort should be made to ensure property owners are given every opportunity to clean up their own premises. Obviously, some individuals with certain mental conditions may require counselling. I had the experience of cleaning up an elderly person's house and being surprised to find that so many items had been stored away. Some people may have a compulsive disorder that prevents them from throwing anything out. This person had carefully folded, flattened and kept every paper bag used to carry purchases, and had neatly stacked those bags and other sheets of paper on shelves and in cupboards, apparently thinking they might be required at some future date. In such cases care must be taken in dealing with the individual. Perhaps something could be done through regulations to ensure that the powers conferred by the bill are not abused by any council. I do not think they would be. However, regulatory provisions could require councils that use the powers to report annually to the Department of Local Government, as a means of ensuring that councils are not abusing these powers or using them excessively. This would enable the Government to annually review the operation of these powers to ensure they are not being abused.
he legislation will allow a council to exercise its primary role in the protection of public health. The order must set out the reasons it is being made and provide a reasonable period of time for compliance with its terms. The order can remain in force for up to five years, so that if waste again accumulates within that period after the premises have been cleaned up, the council can require further notifications to comply with the order without having to issue another order. No notice of the intention to issue an order will be required, although before a council actually enters the premises reasonable notice is required to be given setting out when the entry is to occur, unless there is an emergency.
he legislation also provides that persons served with an order will be given an opportunity to do the clean-up work themselves. If they fail to do so within a reasonable period, the council can do the work and charge them for it. This is consistent with the current provisions of the Act. The right to seek compensation for the cost of carrying out clean-up work applies where a council has issued an order with unreasonable terms or where an order should not have been issued, for example, where a person is able to show there was no risk to public health or the health of an individual. The council's decision can be reviewed by a court if the council has breached the Act or it can be shown there were no grounds for making the order. We support the bill”, Rev Nile said.