Drive to clean up litterbugs
Councils want greater powers to punish people for littering, and are calling for a law change that could increase the number of fines issued.
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) says the 40-year-old Litter Act is impractical to enforce and it wants central Government to amend it to make issuing infringement notices easier.
To do so currently requires council officers to observe a person littering or have ‘‘reasonable cause’’ to suspect such an offence was in the act of being carried out, or had just been committed.
This wording, in effect, leaves council officers with a small window of time in which they can take action over littering.
LGNZ president Dave Cull said it wanted the word ‘‘just’’ removed from the act, which would allow council officers more time to act on ‘‘later evidence’’ of littering, such as evidence found in rubbish or through surveillance footage.
A LGNZ spokesman said amending the law change could result in cleaner towns by discouraging littering and illegal dumping of rubbish. ‘‘No-one likes finding a pile of rubbish dumped down a bank, in a green belt or behind a building.’’
Associate Environment Minister Eugenie Sage said she would seek advice on LGNZ’s call before making a decision.
The Litter Act allows councils to prosecute over the placing, throwing, or dropping of litter.
The same applies to litter that is thrown, dropped or escapes from any vehicle or trailer.
The definition of litter includes refuse, rubbish, animal remains or waste matter.
Fines vary across the country, depending on what is set out in council bylaws. In Auckland and Wellington, fines for nonprosecutable littering range from $100 to $400 but larger fines also exist for more serious offences.
But, as New Zealand Packaging Council executive director Sharon Humphreys points out, the Litter Act is ‘‘grossly underused’’ in its current state.
In Auckland alone, litter cleanup costs almost $5 million a year.
But the number of litter infringement notices issued in the country’s three biggest centres are low or declining.
Auckland Council issued 125 infringements in 2016, 91 in 2017 and has given out 32 thus far in
2018. Christchurch City Council issued one infringement in 2016, two in 2017 and two in 2018.
Wellington City Council has not issued a single litter infringement since November 2017, and has no information on infringements prior to that.
But council spokesman Richard MacLean said it had sent out
164 warning letters to residents and businesses.
‘‘We will send up to three warning letters before issuing an infringement.
‘‘So far we have seen no need to issue an infringement.’’
Wellington City Council undertook ‘‘early-morning stakeouts’’ to catch people dumping illegally, and had about 15 staff who helped with litter control, he said. ‘‘We tend to think we are largely on top of the litter problem.’’ Wellington city councillor Iona Pannett supported LGNZ’s move to make reporting littering easier. ‘‘People are dirty and disgusting sometimes ... it’s really basic stuff.’’
Leonie Rae, Christchurch City Council general manager of consenting and compliance, said it had about 60 litter control officers keeping an eye on things. But the difficulty of establishing the identity of offenders limited the number of infringement notices they issued, she said.
A bill to increase fines for littering is at the select committee stage in Parliament, with the final report due on November 2.