Litter Regulations 1981

The regulations introduce and rely on several key concepts, most of which are defined in regulation 2 or in the schedules. The most significant is litter creating public risk, defined as litter that belongs to a category described in Schedule 1. This is not a single item but a list of 12 categories, each with its own hazards. For instance, a hypodermic needle carries risk of needle-stick injury and disease transmission; a battery can leak toxic chemicals; a lit cigarette can start a fire. The list covers both obviously dangerous items (explosives, poisons, broken glass) and items that are less obviously hazardous but still present significant risk (tyres, refrigerators with doors attached - the latter pose an entrapment and suffocation risk to children). The concept is important because the parent Act (section 23) treats littering that creates public risk as a separate, more serious offence than ordinary littering, and the regulations set a higher modified penalty for it.

The public litter receptacle is defined as a container provided in a public place for disposal of litter. This is the object of several prohibitions: damage, misuse, and abuse of such receptacles are offences. Importantly, the regulations do not define "public place" - that definition is presumably in the Litter Act itself. The regulations also do not define who "owns" a public litter receptacle; the Act likely vests ownership in the public authority that provided it.

Commercial waste and domestic waste are defined in regulation 6(2) to give content to the prohibition on depositing such waste in public litter receptacles. Commercial waste means waste generated by shops, offices, industrial premises, hotels, restaurants and hospitals. Domestic waste means waste from private dwellings, including garbage, lawn clippings and old furnishings. The breadth of these definitions is notable: "lawn clippings" and "old furnishings" are domestic waste, so disposing of grass clippings from a home garden in a public bin is an offence (maximum $5,000). Similarly, a hotel disposing of dining waste in a street bin is committing an offence.

The concept of prescribed offences appears in regulation 9, which says the offences described in Schedule 1A are those prescribed for the purposes of section 30 of the Act. Section 30 is the infringement notice provision, allowing authorised officers to issue on-the-spot fines for certain offences. The schedule lists each offence, the Act or regulation creating it, and the modified penalty applicable. There is a separate column for individuals and bodies corporate. For load securing (regulation 8), there is no modified penalty for bodies corporate - N/A appears. This means a company must be taken to court for that offence; the maximum court penalty is $5,000. This creates an anomaly: a self-employed driver could pay $200 on the spot to resolve a load securing offence, but a company driver (or the company itself) cannot use that route.

Prescribed office (regulation 9A) is a concept under section 26(2)(d) of the Act. It allows a public authority to designate certain positions within its organisation as authorised to sign infringement notices or to appoint authorised officers. The table in regulation 9A lists three authorities: the Department for Youth, Sport and Recreation (now the Department of Sport and Recreation) with managers of camps, camps officers, wardens, relieving wardens, and groundsmen; the Rottnest Island Authority with rangers and honorary rangers; and the Department of Parks and Wildlife with inspectors designated under the Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006 section 39. The list is short and specific, meaning only these offices can exercise the power to issue infringement notices under section 26 - unless the Act itself provides for other mechanisms. This is a constraint on enforcement capacity: only certain government officers can handle litter infringement matters. Private citizens, local government rangers not listed, or police officers are not covered by this regulation, though they may have enforcement powers under other provisions of the Act.

The regulations affect a wide range of people and entities, though the enforcement focus is often on individuals. Individuals are the primary targets of the littering and load securing offences. Any person who drops a cigarette butt, disposes of a household item in a street bin, or drives with an unsecured load risks an infringement notice or prosecution. The higher penalties for "litter creating public risk" mean that discarding a lit cigarette (item 9 of Schedule 1) or a broken bottle (item 6) carries a $500 modified penalty, compared to $200 for ordinary litter. This creates a strong incentive to avoid certain behaviours, but it also means the average person may be unaware that a simple action like throwing a cigarette into a gutter attracts a higher fine than dropping a paper wrapper.

Businesses face direct compliance costs. Commercial waste generators cannot use public litter receptacles for disposal; they must contract private waste services. Hotels, restaurants, shops, offices, and hospitals must ensure that household and commercial waste streams are separated and disposed of through appropriate channels. The load securing regulation applies to all vehicles, but particularly affects transport companies, removalists, tradies carrying equipment, and farmers transporting hay or livestock. The modified penalty is only $200 for individuals, but the court penalty is $5,000, so a business whose driver fails to secure a load can face a much higher fine if the matter is not resolved by infringement notice. Notably, bodies corporate cannot pay the modified penalty for load securing (Schedule 1A shows N/A for body corporate), meaning every such offence must go to court, raising legal costs and potential for a conviction to be recorded.

Public authorities are both regulators and regulated. Local councils, the Rottnest Island Authority, and the Department of Parks and Wildlife have authorised officers who can issue infringement notices. They must also comply with the regulations: they must use litter receptacles that meet the recommended specifications (regulation 3) or risk legal challenge if they fail to provide adequate bins. They must ensure their litter receptacles are not used for illegal dumping. The regulations impose no specific duties on authorities to empty bins or keep them clean, but the prohibition on misuse can create liability if an authority negligently leaves a hazard (e.g., a damaged bin with sharp edges) - though that is more likely a common law duty.

Vehicle owners and drivers are affected by regulation 8, which applies to any vehicle carrying a load on a street or public place. This includes cars with roof racks, trailers, utes, and trucks. The requirement is absolute: the load must be arranged, contained, fastened or covered so it cannot fall or escape. There is no exception for agricultural vehicles, emergency vehicles, or loads that are inherently difficult to secure. This can impose significant cost on farmers moving hay bales or machinery, as they must invest in straps, tarpaulins, or covered trailers.

Property owners may be indirectly affected. The definition of "public litter receptacle" includes containers provided in a "public place". If a business provides a bin on its own land but it is accessible to the public, it may be considered a public litter receptacle, and the business may face liability if people deposit prohibited waste. Conversely, the consent requirement in regulation 6 means a public authority could consent to a business using a public bin for commercial waste, but that is likely rare. The regulations do not address the issue of private bins placed on public land; local council by-laws may cover that.

Contractors and tradespeople who post bills are affected by section 24A of the Act for which the regulations prescribe modified penalties. Bill posting on a public place or on a vehicle carries $200 modified penalty per occurrence. This affects advertisers, property agents, and political campaigners. The low penalty relative to the potential value of the advertising may mean it is treated as a minor cost of doing business rather than a deterrent.

Enforcement officers are affected in terms of their powers and duties. The regulations restrict who can be an authorised officer to those holding specific "prescribed offices" (regulation 9A). This limits the pool of enforcement personnel. The forms for appointment (Form 3) require signature of the CEO as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, adding an administrative layer. Officers must also not alter or add to infringement notices (regulation 10) - a provision that protects the integrity of the notice system but also reduces flexibility.

The regulations impose a series of negative duties (prohibitions) and one positive duty (to secure loads). There are no duties to act, such as to clean up litter, except what may be in the parent Act.

Duty not to damage or deface a public litter receptacle (regulation 4): This is an absolute prohibition with a maximum fine of $5,000. It covers wilful damage and defacement, as well as igniting the contents. Defacement includes graffiti or stickers. The high penalty suggests the drafters consider bins to be public assets worth protecting. The offence is one of specific intent (wilful), so accidental damage is not caught, but "wilful" includes reckless indifference.

Duty not to misuse or interfere with the proper function or proper appearance of a public litter receptacle (regulation 5): This is broader than damage. It covers actions that might not permanently damage the bin but nonetheless interfere, such as blocking the opening, using the bin for unauthorised purposes (like propping a door open), or attaching unauthorised signs. The owner's consent is a defence. The penalty is again $5,000 maximum.

Duty not to deposit domestic or commercial waste in a public litter receptacle (regulation 6): This prohibits using public bins for household or business rubbish. The penalty is $5,000 maximum, but the modified penalty is only $200 (individual) or $500 (body corporate). Consent of the public authority is a defence, but such consent is likely rare and would only be given for specific temporary arrangements (e.g., during a community event). This duty effectively forces residents and businesses to use private waste services, which is a form of market intervention: it prohibits free disposal and channels waste through paid collectors. The result is reduced erosion of the public bin system but increased costs for households and businesses that might otherwise try to save money by dumping in street bins.

Duty to secure loads (regulation 8): This is a strict liability duty with no mental element. The driver is liable regardless of whether they knew the load was insecure. The requirement that the load cannot "fall or otherwise escape" means that even minor spillage, like a few leaves from a garden waste trailer, could theoretically attract the offence. The modified penalty is $200 for individuals only. The court penalty is $5,000. This duty imposes compliance costs: straps, nets, tarpaulins, covered trailers, and time spent securing loads. For tradespeople, this is a recurrent cost. For agricultural vehicles moving hay or livestock, the cost can be significant. The duty applies on any "street or public place", which includes private roads open to the public, so it covers most driving.

Duty not to add to or alter an infringement notice (regulation 10): Only authorised officers can endorse or alter a notice. A person who receives a notice and tries to amend it (e.g., to indicate they will pay later) or who adds a false signature commits an offence with a $400 maximum penalty. This preserves the integrity of the notice system but limits the recipient's ability to correct obvious errors on the spot.

Rights of persons issued with infringement notices: The right under the Act (section 30) to pay the modified penalty within 28 days and avoid court proceedings is preserved by the regulations, which set out the amounts. The form (Form 1) allows the person to choose to pay or do nothing and face court. Form 2 provides for withdrawal of the notice by the authorised officer, either because no further action will be taken or because court proceedings are proposed. This gives the authority flexibility but also creates uncertainty: a person who pays a notice may later have it withdrawn and could claim a refund.

Right to be appointed as an authorised officer: Regulation 9A and Form 3 provide a mechanism for certain office holders to be appointed. There is no right to demand appointment, but the regulations constrain who can be appointed.

Right to use recommended litter receptacles: Regulation 3 is aspirational rather than mandatory. A public authority that provides receptacles meeting the specifications can argue they are complying with the Act. There is no penalty for using non-standard receptacles, but the authority may be vulnerable to criticism or liability if substandard bins cause injury.

The regulations establish a two-tier penalty system: infringement notice (modified penalty) and court prosecution (maximum court penalty). The maximum court penalty for the four core offences (regulations 4, 5, 6, 8) is a fine of $5,000. This is a relatively high amount for a summary offence, reflecting the seriousness with which the WA Parliament views damage to public bins and illegal dumping. In comparison, the maximum penalty for simple offences like jaywalking or public drinking is often lower.

The modified penalties listed in Schedule 1A are considerably lower than the court maximum, creating a strong incentive to pay the notice rather than contest the charge in court. For example, depositing domestic waste in a public bin carries a court maximum of $5,000 but a modified penalty of only $200. There is a ratio of 25:1. Such a large gap effectively turns the modified penalty into a tax on the prohibited activity, as the expected cost of non-compliance for a rational actor is far below the court penalty, but still high enough to deter many. However, it also raises the risk that people will simply treat the $200 as a fee for using the public bin, especially if the alternative cost of private waste disposal is higher. This is a potential unintended consequence: the regulation may reduce enforcement costs but encourage some to view the fine as a cost of doing business.

Enforcement is carried out by authorised officers. The regulations restrict who can be an officer: the prescription in regulation 9A means that only certain employees of specific authorities can be appointed. For example, a local council ranger not listed in the table - such as a general ranger employed by the City of Perth - may not use the infringement notice procedure under section 26 unless the officer holds one of the listed offices. The list is very narrow: Department of Sport and Recreation camps staff, Rottnest Island rangers, and Swan and Canning Rivers inspectors. It does not include police officers, local government officers, or Environmental Protection Authority officers. This seems like a severe limitation on enforcement. In practice, the Litter Act itself likely provides for other categories of authorised officers (section 26(1) probably allows the Minister or CEO to appoint officers generally), but the regulations only designate offices for the purpose of section 26(2)(d) - which may be a separate stream. The limitation could mean that many litter infringements are issued under other provisions or by other officers not caught by regulation 9A. The regulations themselves do not clarify this ambiguity.

The infringement notice form (Form 1) lists seven offences that can be dealt with by notice. Notably, the offence of damaging or defacing a receptacle (regulation 4) and misuse or interference (regulation 5) are not listed, meaning those offences cannot be dealt with by on-the-spot fines; they must go to court. This is logical because wilful damage is more serious and often requires judicial determination. The load securing offence (regulation 8) is listed only for individuals; bodies corporate cannot receive an infringement notice for load securing and must be prosecuted. This creates a regulatory gap: a company that fails to secure its load cannot pay a set fine; it must appear in court, which consumes court resources and may result in a conviction and costs. This may deter companies from self-reporting or settling quickly.

The penalty for adding to or altering an infringement notice (regulation 10) is a flat $400 maximum, with no modified penalty listed. That means it can only be dealt with by court prosecution. This is a trap: a person who accidentally damages a notice or tries to correct a mistake could be charged.

The maximum penalty for litter creating public risk under section 23 is not specified in the regulations; the regulations only set the modified penalty. The Act itself would provide the court maximum. But from Schedule 1A, the modified penalty for that offence is $500 individual/$2,000 body corporate - double the ordinary littering amount. This signals that the legislature intends public risk litter to be treated more severely.

The Litter Regulations 1981 sit under the Litter Act 1979 and cannot contradict it. They are referred to in the Act for specific purposes: section 25 (recommended litter receptacles), section 26(2)(d) (prescribed offices), section 30 (prescribed offences and modified penalties), and section 31A (infringement notices). The regulations give content to those sections.

The regulations interact with environmental laws. The definition of "CEO" in Form 3 references the Environmental Protection Act 1986 section 3(1), meaning the person who appoints authorised officers is the CEO of the Department of Environment Regulation (or successor). This links litter enforcement to the broader environmental protection framework. The Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006 is referenced in regulation 9A for the purposes of inspectors. This means that litter on the Swan and Canning rivers is enforced by inspectors under that Act who are also authorised under the Litter Act. There is an overlap: an offence of littering in the river could be prosecuted under either Act.

The regulations may interact with local government by-laws. Many councils have their own litter or waste management by-laws that impose additional requirements, such as not putting wheelie bins out on certain days, or not leaving bins on footpaths. The regulations do not supersede those by-laws; they coexist. A person could face prosecution under both the regulations and a by-law for the same act, though principles of double jeopardy would likely prevent double punishment.

The load securing regulation (r.8) interacts with the Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Regulations set under the Road Traffic Act 1974. Those regulations also require loads to be secured. A driver who fails to secure a load could face multiple charges. The road traffic regulations may have different penalty amounts, but the Litter Regulations only apply when the load escapes "in or upon any street or public place" - which is the same domain as traffic laws. This duplication creates a risk of double enforcement but also provides multiple avenues for police and rangers.

The regulations interact with the Criminal Code (WA) if the damage to a receptacle amounts to criminal damage. Regulation 4 has a lower maximum penalty ($5,000) than criminal property damage (which can be up to $75,000 or imprisonment). Police may prefer to charge under the Criminal Code for serious vandalism, leaving the Litter Regulations for minor defacement.

The regulations also interact with the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WA), which sets targets for waste reduction. The prohibition on depositing commercial waste in public bins indirectly promotes the use of commercial waste services, which may support recycling and recovery. However, it also creates a barrier to the informal reuse of bins for legitimate waste, potentially increasing illegal dumping if the cost of proper disposal is too high.

The definition of "commercial waste" does not include waste from farms, schools, or non-profit organisations, so those generators may still use public bins for waste that is not domestic or commercial, unless the Act prohibits it. This is a gap.

The Litter Regulations 1981 were first gazetted on 3 July 1981 and came into operation on the same day, with a correction published on 17 July 1981 for regulation 10. The original regulations were relatively brief: they covered citation, definitions (originally much simpler), recommended litter receptacles, damage to receptacles, prohibition on depositing domestic or commercial waste, load securing, and forms. Over the decades, significant amendments have reshaped the instrument.

The first amendment of note was the Litter Amendment Regulations 1982 (gazetted 13 August 1982), which inserted the regulation on prescribed offices (now regulation 9A) and added the Department for Youth, Sport and Recreation to the table. This amendment was necessary to allow the department's camp managers and wardens to enforce litter laws on state recreation camps.

In 1996, a major set of amendments was made by the Litter Amendment Regulations 1996 (gazetted 19 July 1996, operative 20 July 1996). These inserted regulation 5 (misuse or interference with a public litter receptacle) and deleted the original regulation 7 (which had dealt with something else, possibly related to receptacles). They also significantly revised the infringement notice form (Form 1) to include a checklist of offences and modified penalties, and introduced the concept of "prescribed offences" (originally in a different form). The modified penalties at that time were lower; for example, ordinary littering was $50, rising to $200 by 2013. The 1996 amendments also updated the table of prescribed offices.

The Litter Amendment Regulations 2012 (gazetted 11 January 2013, operative 12 January 2013) were the most dramatic. They introduced the definition of "litter creating public risk" and added Schedule 1 listing 12 categories of dangerous litter. They inserted regulation 9 (prescribed offences) and Schedule 1A with the current modified penalty amounts. They increased maximum penalties for regulations 4, 5, 6, and 8 from $500 to $5,000 - a tenfold increase in nominal terms. They also increased the penalty for regulation 10 (offence of adding to or altering infringement notices) from $200 to $400. The amendment updated the infringement notice form to include the new categories and amounts, and added the "litter creating public risk" option. This amendment reflected a policy decision to crack down on dangerous littering, likely in response to community concerns about needle stick injuries, fire starts from cigarettes, and hazardous waste.

Subsequent amendments in 2015 (two sets, June and August) updated the prescribed offices table. The June 2015 amendment changed references to "Department of Parks and Wildlife" and added the designation of inspectors under the Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006. The August 2015 amendment inserted Form 3 (Certificate of Appointment of Authorised Officer) and updated the reference to the CEO under the Environmental Protection Act. These were administrative adjustments rather than substantive policy changes.

The compilation table shows reprints in 1997, 2004, and 2014, indicating periodic consolidation. The regulations have been amended many times, reflecting changing enforcement priorities and statutory machinery.

The regulations themselves are rarely the subject of reported litigation. Being subordinate legislation, they are not often challenged directly. Most litigation under the Litter Act 1979 involves the parent Act's provisions on littering and illegal dumping, with the regulations providing the evidentiary and penalty framework.

One area of potential dispute is the definition of "litter creating public risk". The categories in Schedule 1 are broad, and whether a particular item falls within a category could be contested. For example, item 3 covers containers labelled "CONTROLLED DRUG". If a container has no label but contained a controlled drug, does it qualify? The schedule requires the container to be labelled or marked with that warning. So an unlabelled bottle that once held a controlled drug would not be caught, even if it creates public risk. Similarly, "broken glass" in item 6 is not defined as sharp-edged, but the item is "broken glass, or sharp-edged metal or earthenware". A broken pane of glass with smooth edges might not be "sharp-edged"? This could be litigated. Also, a "lit cigarette" (item 9) is only a public risk while lit. If a cigarette is extinguished but still warm, is it "lit"? The definition likely requires active burning.

Another possible area is the application of regulation 8 to different types of loads. The regulation uses "fall or otherwise escape". If a load shifts but does not actually fall onto the road, does that constitute an offence? The phrase "cannot fall or otherwise escape" suggests the duty is to prevent the possibility, not just the occurrence. That means a driver could be charged even if nothing escaped, if the load was not properly secured. This could be enforced subjectively by police or rangers. The modified penalty is $200, which may be cheaper than fighting the charge in court, so few would contest.

The infringement notice procedure under section 30 may be challenged on formality grounds. The forms in the regulations are prescribed; if a notice deviates from the form, it may be invalid. Regulation 10 prohibits unauthorised additions or alterations, but does not say that a notice is void if it does not comply with the form. The Litter Act section 30(5) likely provides that failure to comply with the form does not invalidate the notice. Nonetheless, technical challenges based on the prescribed content are possible.

The prescribed offices list (regulation 9A) is narrow. If a person is issued an infringement notice by someone who is not a holder of a prescribed office, the notice may be invalid. This could be a successful defence, but it would require the recipient to know the list. The narrowness of the list effectively limits enforcement to a small number of officers, which may lead to anecdotal evidence that many littering incidents go unpunished.

There is no reported case in the text of the regulations themselves. As a legislative instrument, it is not a case report. The deep dive must not invent cases, so any litigation history discussed is speculative based on the regulation text. The practitioner should note that in the absence of judicial interpretation, the regulations' provisions are to be read according to their ordinary meaning. The most likely litigation would involve the definition of "public litter receptacle" - is a bin provided by a charity on a public street a public litter receptacle? If it is, then regulation 6 could be used to prosecute someone depositing domestic waste in it, but the charity may have a different intention. This is unresolved.

Several traps exist for the unwary. The most significant is the gap between the modified penalty and the court penalty for certain offences. Regulation 6 (depositing domestic or commercial waste in a public bin) has a court maximum of $5,000 but a modified penalty of only $200. A person who receives an infringement notice for $200 might decide not to pay, thinking the fine is small, but could end up in court facing a much larger fine plus costs. The same applies to regulation 8 (load securing): $200 modified, $5,000 court maximum. The incentive to pay the notice is overwhelming, but the process is automated and many may challenge it.

The definition of "domestic waste" includes "old furnishings". A person who puts a small piece of furniture in a public bin to avoid a council hard waste collection fee commits an offence with a $5,000 court maximum. The regulation does not distinguish between a small chair and a mattress. Similarly, "lawn clippings" are domestic waste, so putting grass in a street bin is illegal.

The load securing obligation applies to all vehicles, not just commercial ones. A car with a roof rack carrying a mattress that is not strapped down tightly enough could be fined. Even if nothing falls, the officer can deem the load insecure. The requirement that the load "cannot fall or otherwise escape" is strict: if there is any risk, the offence is committed.

The "litter creating public risk" category includes many items that people discard routinely. A cigarette is a classic example. A smoker who drops a still-lit cigarette into a street bin or onto the ground (as opposed to stubbing it out first) commits the higher penalty offence. The same goes for a person who discards a disposable battery in a public bin: batteries are item 12, so that is public risk litter, even if the battery is not leaking. A person who throws away a broken mirror: item 6 covers broken glass, but a mirror is glass with a reflective coating; it may be sharp-edged. The safe approach is to assume any glass item dropped in a public place could attract the higher penalty.

The prescription of offices under regulation 9A is limited. Most local council rangers are not on the list. This means if a council ranger tries to issue an infringement notice for a littering offence under section 30, the notice may be invalid because the ranger is not a holder of a "prescribed office". The council may have authorised the ranger under a different part of the Act, but the regulations only specify offices for the purpose of section 26(2)(d). This is a narrow gateway, and practitioners should check whether the issuing officer had the necessary delegation. Many infringement notices may be technically invalid, but recipients rarely challenge them.

The offence of adding to or altering an infringement notice (regulation 10) is a lesser-known trap. A person who writes "will pay" on the notice or crosses out a mistake could be charged, even if they intended to comply. The only person who can alter the notice is an authorised officer. This provision is designed to prevent fraud, but it can catch honest citizens.

The recommended specifications for litter receptacles (regulation 3) are not mandatory, but if a public authority uses a bin that does not meet the specifications, and someone is injured by a sharp edge or a poorly placed opening, the authority may be liable. The regulation gives no defence. Conversely, a person who damages a bin that does not meet the specifications still commits the offence, as there is no exception for substandard bins.

Finally, the regulations do not provide for a defence of necessity or emergency. A person who discards a dangerous object (like a live firework) into a public bin to get rid of it quickly could still be charged with littering creating public risk. The law does not distinguish between responsible and irresponsible disposal of hazardous items.

Compliance requires awareness and proactive measures. For individuals, the simplest rule is: never put any waste in a public litter receptacle that is not typical litter, such as a wrapper, a bottle, a coffee cup. Do not put household rubbish, garden waste, furniture, or any commercial waste. If you must dispose of a battery or a broken glass item, take it to a designated recycling centre or a hazardous waste drop-off point. Do not throw lit cigarettes anywhere but in a designated ash tray. Secure all loads on vehicles: use straps, nets, ropes, or a covered trailer, and double-check before driving. If you receive an infringement notice, pay it promptly unless you have a strong defence - the cost of fighting is likely higher.

For businesses, the compliance burden is greater. Implement a waste management policy that ensures all commercial waste is collected by a licensed waste contractor and not dumped in public bins. Place signs in staff areas reminding employees not to put business waste in street bins. For transport companies, invest in load restraint equipment and train drivers on proper securing techniques. Conduct regular load checks. If a driver receives a load securing infringement notice, the company should pay it for the driver (if individual) but note that the company cannot use the infringement notice process itself; any corporate charge must go to court. It may be cheaper to settle early rather than incur legal costs.

For public authorities that wish to use infringement notices, they must ensure that only officers holding the prescribed offices (regulation 9A) are authorised to issue notices. If the authority wishes to extend enforcement to other employees, it must seek amendment to the regulations or use other provisions of the Act. The authority should also ensure that any litter receptacles it provides meet the recommended specifications to reduce the risk of liability and to facilitate prosecution of those who damage them.

For local councils, while not directly covered by regulation 9A, they may need to rely on state government officers for infringement notices. This is a gap that may hinder enforcement. Councils can still prosecute offences in court without using infringement notices, but that is more costly.

For individuals who own vehicles that carry loads occasionally, such as ute owners or people with trailers, compliance is straightforward: use ratchet straps, tarpaulins, or bungee cords to secure the load. For unusual loads like mattresses or furniture, tie down at multiple points. Avoid overloading.

The main difficulty with compliance is the breadth of "litter creating public risk". A person who unknowingly throws a trash item that falls into a Schedule 1 category may be caught. For example, a wrapper that contained medication (blister pack) is item 2 if it is a blister pack containing a pill or designed to contain one. Many people throw away empty blister packs. That is litter creating public risk. The only safe approach is to treat all pharmaceutical packaging with care and dispose of it in household rubbish - but be careful not to put it in a public bin. This is confusing.

The load securing regulation also applies to pedestrians or cyclists? The word "drive a vehicle" suggests motor vehicles or other vehicles propelled by mechanical power. Bicycles are vehicles under some definitions, but likely not intended. However, a bicycle carrying a load that falls onto the street could still be an offence? The regulation says "in or upon any street or public place" and "drive a vehicle". Bicycles are not typically "driven" but ridden. A court would likely interpret strictly. The safe approach is to secure all loads on any carrier, including bikes.

Finally, the forms in Schedule 2 must be used when issuing infringement notices. If a notice deviates from the prescribed form, it may be challenged. Authorities should ensure their notices exactly match Form 1, including the table of offences and the correct penalty amounts. The withdrawal form (Form 2) is optional but should be used if withdrawing a notice. The certificate of appointment (Form 3) must be used for authorised officers.