Introduction Of Anti-litter Bill

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31378, 25 May 1967, Page 3

Introduction Of Anti-litter Bill

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, May 24.

New Zealanders were not as a people litterconscious, the Labour M.P. for Timaru (Sir Basil Arthur) claimed today when introducing his Abatement of Litter Bill.

“This matter has caused me great concern for a number of years,” he told Parliament.

Sir Basil Arthur said his eightclause measure was an attempt to consolidate existing anti-litter legislation, to increase penalties for casting litter, and to define litter.

“The passing of this bill would clean up untidy legislation,” he commented. He referred to the “average New Zealander’s habit” of leaving litter about in public places such as parks. a

It was just as easy to take cigarette butts and lolly papers home and burn them as it was to toss them out the car window. It soon became an automatic habit, Sir Basil Arthur said.

People were automatically litter-conscious in Great Britain and other countries with anti-litter legislation.

Sir Basil Arthur said legislation was not the only necessary step. An intensive campaign led by the Government was called for, along with support from local bodies and attempts to make schoolchildren litter-conscious. Sir Basil Arthur said the main clause of his bill —penalty for leaving litter—closely followed British legislation. Fines Given Under this clause, anyone leaving any “filth, dirt, rubbish or anything whatsoever” in such circumstances as to “cause, contribute to or tend

to lead to, the defacement by litter of any place in the open air,” unless authorised, would be liable to a fine not exceeding £2O. Anyone throwing or leaving bottles or glass in a public place would be liable to a fine not exceeding £3O. The Attorney-General (Mr Hanan) described people who threw empty bottles from cars as “irresponsible fools.” He said boys from a borstal training centre had recently picked up many hundredweights of broken bottles from just one beach. However, it was difficult to know where to draw the line in prosecuting for leaving litter. Mr Hanan asked whether people should be prosecuted for merly throwing down a cigarette-end in the street. ‘Evil Genius’ Dr. A. M. Finlay (Lab., Waitakere) told the House he had observed that motorvehicles were “very much the evil genius” of the litter problem. Litter was thrown out of car windows and left on picnic grounds. On the other hand, people who travelled on foot through parks and reserves were more aware of their surrounds and put their litter where it could be later destroyed. The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Seath) said he

welcomed the opportunity to discuss the litter problem. However, he reiterated his belief that litter was a problem better dealt with by education rather than legislation. Conference Plan Mr Seath said that after the municipal conference this year he considered the time was right for calling together the 17 or 18 associations concerned with this problem. He had now organised a meeting of the interested bodies for next month. The Minister said he had always felt that an anti-litter campaign similar to the national water safety campaign would prove well worth while providing the funds could be obtained. Mr G. F. Gair (Nat., North Shore) said that it was not sufficient to pile on more penalties for litterbugs but the heart of the matter was a question of social attitudes. First Reading “Legislation is only one front and education and incentives should also be included,” he said. Mr H. R. Lapwood (Nat., Rotorua) said the greatest good of the bill would be to give publication for the need to be litter-conscious.

The measure was given a first reading and set down for second reading on June 21.