Simpson ScottLITTER (INCREASED INFRINGEMENT FEE) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I move That the Litter (Increased Infringement Fee) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.In doing so I want to just remind the House of what the simple but effective intent of this bill is and it is to amend the Litter Act that was first passed in this House back in the 1970s and has been amended a couple of times but not substantially rewritten so that district councils around the countryside can increase the maximum infringement fine payable for littering from what I consider to be a measly $400 to a new maximum of $1000. This bill is not of itself a silver bullet in terms of providing answers to litter and litter issues around the nation but it is intended to be something of an additional tool that can be used by councils to get over some of the challenges that they have in terms of administering the current infringement process and making it worth their while whilst at the same time ensuring that litterers actually get a very clear message that littering is not acceptable behaviour and that where they are caught infringement notices will and can be issued and that those notices will have a maximum penalty of up to $1000. Now what this bill doesn't do is provide that the maximum should be the minimum. So councils would under this legislation if it's passed by the House eventually be able to move within a range of dollar values up to that $1000 maximum.I would like to acknowledge and thank the members of the Environment Committee that have recommended in their report back to this House that the bill be passed with a couple of amendments. One of the amendments suggested from the select committee is that clause 4 be removed and that clause 5 and a new clause 6 be inserted to change and improve the clarity of the principal Act without altering the legal effect of the Act. Those are amendments that I support. I want to thank members who diligently paid attention to the submitters. I want to thank and acknowledge the chair of the committee Dr Deborah Russell who surely must be as this Government enters the second half of its term ready for promotion to Cabinet. The committee received 13 submissions on the bill and we heard only three oral submissions. Five councils made written submissions and all were in support although I did notice that the submission from the Hamilton council actually was in blank and I guess that was not meant to be a littering matter but it was duly noted that the Hamilton council's submission was in blank and we took that to be in support. The majority of the individual submissions were in support with several calling for the penalty that is being nominated actually to be higher. There were a couple of submissions that were opposed. One supported the general intent of the bill but thought that the increase would not be effective and another thought that the proposed fine maximum was out of proportion with other littering offences.So why is an infringement regime useful in terms of councils being able to sort out their litter issues? Well quite simply it is because the other option is to proceed through a long detailed expensive and legalistic court process for littering. That option applies and is available to councils both regional and district in order to perform their role in trying to control litter bugs and littering around their regions. But as I say it's expensive it's time-consuming it's legalistic it involves lawyers and courts and it may not necessarily always be the best use of our judicial system's court time.An infringement process actually is very effective. It's quick it's efficient and it works. Ironically at the same time that this bill was before the Environment Committee another bill going through the select committee process relating to setting up an infringement fine notice regime for the conservation rangers in the Department of Conservation (DOC) was also going through the committee. It's interesting to note that some of the arguments that were used in favour of DOC officers and rangers being able to operate an infringement fine process were exactly contrary to the arguments that were being used by officials and others in terms of this piece of legislation and just as a layperson looking at lawyers trying to justify things I found that quite fascinating.So here we have what is essentially a test for this Government. It's a test of their commitment to actions rather than just mere words and the commitment that I seek from them will be to support this bill not because it intends to be a magic wand and a silver bullet that solves all our waste issues or all our litter issues but because it sends a clear message of support from this Parliament to the district councils around the countryside who are trying to fight a battle against litter and litter bugs. I think that as a Parliament we should be supporting those efforts and we should be actually sending a strong clear decisive message to not only councils that we support their work in this area but also to the people who choose to litter. This is a test of the Government's commitment—of the coalition Government's commitment—to the environment to their often quoted words about reducing waste and litter and minimising waste and stuff that goes to landfill and it's a test of their commitment to the slogans and campaigning rhetoric that they have used in past campaigns.So this is about making words real and making actions count. One of the questions is where do the Greens sit on this? I had an interesting exchange of text communications with Minister Sage as that party's representative and as a result of that initially they seemed to be in support. There was a bit of a haggling about the prices and now it seems that they are opposed to this. So that speaks volumes about their commitment to the environment and their commitment to supporting regional and district councils.I want to just highlight one of the examples that occurred in my electorate over the summer period. As the member of Parliament for Coromandel nothing really irritates me as much as driving around or walking around my electorate and seeing the amount of litter that is literally on the side of roads in drains in cavities and what have you. It's a problem that is exacerbated during the summer period when we get literally hundreds of thousands of extra visitors.SPEAKER: Litteraly!"Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Yes literally—good pun Mr Speaker. I hasten to add I don't want to draw you into the debate. But the Thames-Coromandel District Council tries its best and they work very hard. There was a case in January of this year and some members will be aware of this. An eagle-eyed resident of the Thames Coast spotted a tourist defecating around the rocks on the beautiful Thames Coast and this good citizen—I've taken the liberty of not providing a particularly large photograph of this but here was the photograph that accompanied the infringement fine. But the maximum fine—the maximum fine—the infringement notice that the council could impose on this awful situation which regrettably happens far too often around the beautiful Coromandel was the existing maximum which is $400. I don't think that's enough. I don't think that's nearly enough in terms of sending a message to people who not only litter with paper and cigarette butts and what have you but choose to litter with human waste. I don't think that sends nearly a strong enough message to people or to councils about the tools that are available to them to work in this area. As I said this is a test of this coalition Government's commitment to the environment to their support for regional and district councils and I'll be looking forward to seeing whether they support this legislation through to the committee stage of the whole House or whether in fact they choose to reject the support of councils and reject the attack on litter and litter bugs.I commend this bill to the House and I thank the committee for its work. I'm keen to see what the Government has to say."