MATARANKA COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT COUNCIL (LITTER) BY-LAWS 1987

Litter is defined broadly in s 3 to mean “litter, garbage, rubbish, drink cans, refuse or waste matter, and includes a dead animal.” This is a non-exhaustive inclusive definition. Any discarded item, including a dead animal, falls within the definition. Notably, the definition does not distinguish between organic and inorganic matter, nor between commercial and domestic waste.

Public place is defined in s 3 as “a place open to, or used by, the public.” This includes streets, footpaths, parks, council dumps, and presumably any area to which the public has access, whether publicly or privately owned. The definition does not require that the place be owned by the council or government; a privately owned car park open to the public would be a public place for the purposes of these by-laws.

Authorised officer means an officer authorised by the council for the purposes of these by-laws (s 3). The by-laws confer on such officers a power of entry onto land to inspect for litter (s 9(2)) and the power to serve infringement notices (s 17(1)). There is no requirement that the officer hold any particular qualification or rank, nor that the authorisation be in writing, though it may be implied. This broad delegation of coercive power - entry onto private land without warrant - is significant given the low standard of “believes on reasonable grounds” required (s 9(2)).

Land is defined in s 3 to “includ[e] buildings or temporary structures other than a building or structure used exclusively as a private dwelling.” This means that a private dwelling house itself is excluded from the definition of “land” for the by-laws. Consequently, the duty to keep land clean and free from litter (s 9) does not extend to the interior of a private dwelling, but it does apply to the land surrounding the dwelling (the yard, garden, driveway) and to any non-exclusive-use buildings on that land (e.g. a shed used partly for business or a guest house). The exclusion is narrow: a “building or structure used exclusively as a private dwelling” is excluded. If a building has mixed use (e.g. a home office that is not exclusively private dwelling) or is a temporary structure like a caravan used as a dwelling (but not exclusively, perhaps for storage), it may fall within the definition of “land” and attract the s 9 duty.

Occupier and owner are not separately defined in these by-laws. The term “occupier” appears in ss 7, 9, and 10. In s 7, the duty applies to “an occupier or, where there is no occupier, the owner of land”. Similarly in s 9. This suggests that the council intends to catch either a tenant (occupier) or a landlord (owner) if the land is vacant. The absence of a definition may create uncertainty, particularly for land that is leased but temporarily unoccupied.

Fixed penalty election is a central concept under s 17 and the Schedule. An authorised officer who believes an infringement has occurred may serve a notice in the prescribed form. The recipient has 14 days from service to pay $20 to the clerk of the council. Payment precludes prosecution for that infringement. If the recipient does not pay, the council may prosecute, and the maximum court penalty is $200 (s 16). The fixed penalty amount is substantially lower than the maximum, creating a strong incentive to pay rather than defend, even for a person who believes they are innocent. This is a classic expedited revenue-raising mechanism, not necessarily a mechanism for just outcomes.

“Fouling” in s 5 is not defined beyond the examples “spitting, urinating or defecating” and “in any other manner”. This is extremely broad. It could cover vomiting, spilling food, leaving a nappy, pouring a liquid, or any other act that renders a public place unclean. The lack of definition gives authorised officers wide discretion.

Dump is not defined but is used in ss 13 and 14. The by-laws require the council to circulate a notice specifying location, hours, class of litter, and other conditions. The council has discretion to decide what classes of litter may be deposited and what further conditions apply (s 13(d), (e)). This allows the council to ban certain waste (e.g. hazardous materials) or to restrict dumping to certain hours, but it also creates a trap for users who may not be aware of the conditions.

The by-laws apply to any person within the Mataranka community government area (s 2). However, the practical burdens fall most heavily on a few categories.

Occupiers of land are the primary duty-bearers. They must provide a compliant rubbish bin (s 10(1)(a)), maintain it (s 10(1)(b)), keep the lid on (s 10(1)(c)), ensure all litter produced on the land goes into the bin (s 10(1)(d)), wrap wet litter (s 10(1)(e)), mark the bin with lot number and name if required (s 10(1)(f)), place it out on collection days and bring it back (s 10(1)(g)), and clean it with antiseptic every four weeks (s 10(1)(h)). That is a detailed and recurring list of obligations. For a smallholder or a family, these requirements may be onerous. The bin capacity limit of 0.05 m³ (50 litres) is small for a household generating standard waste; larger bins are not permitted unless an authorised officer or council order says otherwise - but the by-law does not provide any discretion to allow larger bins. An occupier generating more than 50 litres of waste per collection cycle would face a choice between storing excess waste (which would violate s 10(1)(d) because not all litter is placed in the bin) or making multiple trips to a dump (which would be subject to the dump’s conditions and hours). The four-weekly antiseptic cleaning requirement imposes a cost of time and materials, and the obligation to wrap wet litter before binning adds a compliance step.

Owners of vacant land (where there is no occupier) inherit the s 9 duty to keep the land clean and free from litter. They also face the risk of an authorised officer entering the land, issuing a notice, and if not complied with, having the council carry out work and (presumably) recover costs - though the by-laws do not expressly provide for cost recovery. An owner of a vacant lot in the community area could be held liable for litter that blows onto the land from elsewhere, because s 9(1) is absolute: “shall keep that land clean and free from litter”. There is no defence of natural causes or third-party intervention.

Drivers of vehicles on a road within the area are liable if litter falls or is dropped from the vehicle onto the road or adjoining land (s 8). The by-law uses “permit or allow”, which could cover situations where a passenger throws litter out; the driver may be deemed to have permitted or allowed it by failing to prevent it. This imposes a high standard of supervision on the driver.

Persons using public places are subject to the prohibitions against placing litter (s 4), fouling (s 5), leaving a household rubbish bin in a public place except on collection day (s 6), and interfering with a bin (s 11). These are straightforward but potentially overbroad: “otherwise place litter in or on a public place” could include dropping a leaf, spilling a coffee, or even a child dropping a toy. The authorised officer has discretion whether to issue a fixed penalty notice or prosecute.

Council contractors and employees are exempt from the bin interference prohibition (s 11(c),(d)) but must comply with s 12 (return bins after emptying). They are also subject to s 14(d) - they must not remove litter from a dump without council approval in writing.

The council itself has obligations under s 13 to circulate notice of dump establishment and conditions. Failure to do so may make enforcement of s 14 difficult, but the by-laws do not create a penalty for council non-compliance.

Duty not to litter a public place (s 4). A person must not sweep, throw, spill, drop or otherwise place litter in or on a public place. The exception is lawful placement in a council rubbish bin, a household container, or a council dump. The prohibition is subject to “lawful placing”, which arguably covers only these three categories. For example, placing litter in a private bin that is in a public place without authorisation would be a breach of s 4 and also s 6.

Duty not to foul a public place (s 5). Absolute prohibition on spitting, urinating, defecating, or any other manner of fouling. The phrase “in any other manner” is open-ended and may capture things like spilling oil, vomiting, or leaving animal faeces.

Duty of occupier/owner not to allow spread of litter (s 7). The occupier (or owner if no occupier) must not cause or allow litter to spread from the land onto a public place or adjoining land. This is a strict obligation: if wind or animals spread litter, the occupier may have “allowed” it if preventative measures were not taken.

Duty to keep land clean (s 9(1)). The occupier (or owner) must keep the land clean and free from litter. This is an ongoing duty, not merely a response to a notice. However, the by-laws provide a graduated enforcement mechanism: an authorised officer may enter and inspect, then serve a notice to clean within a specified period, and if not complied with, may enter and do the work (ss 9(2)-(5)). The occupier’s right to challenge the notice or the officer’s opinion is not spelled out; presumably a person could refuse entry, but that would risk prosecution for hindrance (s 15).

Duty of occupier to provide and maintain a rubbish bin (s 10(1)). Detailed obligations as described earlier. There is a limited exemption for lawful destruction of litter by fire (s 10(2)), but only for litter “capable of being so destroyed”. This may permit backyard burning of paper and cardboard, but not plastic, metal, or wet waste.

Duty not to interfere with rubbish bins (s 11). Exceptions only for the occupier, persons with consent, council agents, and contractors. Theft of bins, tampering, or even moving a bin without consent is an offence.

Duty of council collectors to return bins (s 12). After emptying, the lid must be replaced tightly and the bin returned to its former location.

Duty of dump users to comply with conditions (s 14). Must use only during specified hours, only for allowed classes of litter, must not remove litter from the dump without written council approval, and must follow directions of an authorised officer.

Right to elect to pay a fixed penalty (s 17). A person served with an infringement notice may pay $20 within 14 days to avoid prosecution. This is a valuable right: it limits exposure to the maximum $200 penalty and avoids a criminal record (though prosecution is still possible if not paid). However, there is no right to elect to pay after 14 days, nor any right to request a review of the notice before paying. The notice form (Schedule) does list the alleged offence with a tick-box, but there is no apparent right to make representations to the council. The recipient may choose between prosecution (option (a)) or paying (option (b)). This framing pressures the recipient to pay, as prosecution exposes them to up to $200 plus costs, and the time and risk of court.

Rights of authorised officers (ss 9(2), 17(1)). They may enter land upon reasonable belief that it is not clean and free from litter, without a warrant. They may also serve infringement notices. The by-laws do not impose any duty on the officer to give reasons for the entry or to provide a written record.

Maximum penalty for any contravention: $200 (s 16). This is a modest amount, even in 1987 terms, and is unindexed in the source. The by-laws do not specify a daily penalty for continuing offences, so a person who fails to clean their land for months may face only a single $200 fine if prosecuted once.

Fixed penalty: $20 if paid within 14 days of service of an infringement notice (s 17(2)). This is one-tenth of the maximum. The mechanism is a form of administrative fine that short-circuits prosecution. The notice form (Schedule) does not appear to require the officer to state the evidence relied upon or to give the recipient any opportunity to respond before payment is due.

Enforcement by work in default: Under s 9(5), if a person fails to comply with a notice to clean land, an authorised officer may enter and carry out the work. Critically, the by-laws do not contain an express provision for the council to recover the cost of that work from the occupier or owner. This is a notable gap. A council that spends money to clean a property may not have a statutory right to recoup that cost, nor a charge over the land. The only route to recover costs might be through a separate contractual claim or under general local government law, but the by-laws themselves are silent. This reduces the incentive for the council to use the work-in-default power, as it becomes a cost to ratepayers.

Hindrance of an authorised officer: s 15 creates a separate offence with a penalty of $200. This can be used to punish anyone who obstructs an inspection or the carrying out of work.

Prosecution: The by-laws do not specify who may bring a prosecution. Presumably the council or its delegates can initiate proceedings in a local court. The by-laws do not address double jeopardy if a person pays the fixed penalty and is later prosecuted - s 17(3) bars prosecution after payment. However, if a person does not pay, they may be prosecuted; there is no limitation period stated, so the default rules under local government or criminal procedure would apply.

Evidence and burden: The by-laws do not set out evidentiary presumptions, such as a presumption that litter found on land was placed there by the occupier. The prosecution would need to prove the elements beyond reasonable doubt. This may make it difficult to secure convictions for spread of litter (s 7) or failure to keep land clean (s 9) if the occupier can argue that the litter arrived naturally or was deposited by a third party without the occupier’s knowledge. The s 9 duty is absolute, but the prosecution must still prove that the land was not clean and free from litter at the relevant time.

Enforcement costs vs benefits: The fixed penalty of $20 is so low that it may not cover the administrative cost of issuing and processing the notice, let alone the cost of inspections. This creates a risk that the by-laws will be enforced sporadically, or that enforcement will focus on easy, visible targets (e.g. cars with visible litter) rather than systematic clean-up of problem properties. The absence of a daily penalty for ongoing non-compliance further weakens deterrence.

Criminal record: Offences under these by-laws are criminal, not civil. A conviction for a $200 fine could have implications for employment, visas, or professional licences. The fixed penalty payment avoids a conviction, which is a significant advantage for the recipient.

These by-laws are made under the Local Government Act 2008 (NT), as stated on the first page of the source. However, the by-laws themselves date from 1987, so they were originally made under an earlier local government statute. The reprint notes the enabling act as the 2008 Act, which suggests they were continued in force under the new Act. This interaction means that the by-laws are subordinate legislation, and their validity depends on consistency with the parent Act. For example, if the Local Government Act 2008 imposes procedural requirements for making by-laws (e.g. public consultation, gazettal), those requirements would need to have been met at the time of making or when the by-laws were continued. The source does not provide that history.

Interpretation Act 1978 is expressly excluded by s 18(1): “Section 57 of the Interpretation Act 1978 does not apply to these By-laws.” Section 57 is the provision requiring regulations and by-laws to be notified in the Gazette and to be available for purchase. Instead, these by-laws have their own publication rule: copies must be available for inspection during office hours at the council office (s 18(2)). This is a lower standard of publication. A person who does not visit the council office may have difficulty accessing the current text. This could affect the enforceability of the by-laws against a defendant who was unaware of the specific requirements (e.g. the bin specs). However, ignorance of the law is generally no defence, but the reduced publication may give rise to arguments about procedural fairness or natural justice if a person could not reasonably ascertain the law.

Other by-laws of the council: These by-laws sit alongside other local laws regulating animals, parking, building, etc. They do not purport to override those laws. For instance, a separate by-law may prohibit burning of rubbish, which would limit the s 10(2) exemption for lawful destruction by fire.

Environmental Protection legislation: The NT’s environmental laws, such as the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, may apply concurrently. Littering that causes environmental harm could attract higher penalties under that Act. These by-laws do not displace that Act; they provide an additional, lower-level enforcement option. A council may choose to enforce its by-laws rather than refer matters to the Environment Protection Authority.

Criminal Code (NT): Offences under the by-laws are regulatory, not part of the criminal code proper. However, the defence of mistake of fact may be available under s 43AZ of the Criminal Code if the offence is one of strict liability. The by-laws do not specify whether they are strict liability. The wording of s 16 (“contravenes or fails to comply”) suggests that mens rea is not required, but a court could read in a defence of honest and reasonable mistake.

Local Government Act provisions on entry: The power of entry under s 9(2) may be supplemented or restricted by the parent Act. The source does not quote those provisions. A person subject to entry may have rights under the parent Act, such as a requirement for the officer to produce identification or to give notice. The by-laws do not mention any such requirement.

Contract law: The obligation of council contractors to return bins (s 12) is a public law duty, but breach also may constitute a breach of the contract between the contractor and the council. The council could enforce both.

Common law nuisance: The duty to keep land clean (s 9) overlaps with the common law tort of private nuisance if litter from one property causes damage or interference to a neighbour. A neighbour could sue for nuisance in addition to reporting a breach of the by-laws. The by-laws provide a quicker, cheaper remedy for persistent litter problems but do not bar common law claims.

The source is a reprint “As in force at 7 October 1987”. The endnotes indicate that the by-laws were notified on 7 October 1987 and commenced on the same date. There is no table of amendments to the by-laws themselves. However, the endnotes list: “3 GENERAL AMENDMENTS - General amendments of a formal nature (which are not referred to in the table of amendments to this reprint) are made by the Interpretation Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Act No. 22 of 2018) to: bl 1 and 18 and sch.”

This means that at some point after 1987, amendments of a formal nature (e.g. updating references, standardising language) were applied to by-laws 1 (Short title), 18 (Publication of By-laws), and the Schedule. The nature of those amendments is not specified in the source. The Interpretation Legislation Amendment Act 2018 was a NT Act that made standard amendments to subordinate legislation to reflect modern drafting practices. It likely changed the citation format, the exclusion of s 57 of the Interpretation Act, and perhaps the form of the infringement notice.

No other amendments are recorded. This suggests that the substantive provisions (definitions, duties, penalties) have remained unchanged since 1987. The fixed penalty of $20 and the maximum penalty of $200 have not been updated for inflation. If the by-laws are still in force today, these amounts are very low in real terms.

The by-laws were made under an earlier local government statute, but the reprint header says “By-laws under the Local Government Act 2008”. This implies that the by-laws were continued in force when the new Act came into effect, likely via transitional provisions. The absence of a formal re-make means that the by-laws may not have been reviewed for consistency with modern policy or human rights standards.

The source does not cite any judicial decisions involving these by-laws. No court case is mentioned in the by-laws themselves or in the endnotes. This is unsurprising for a minor local by-law of a small community. However, the absence of litigation history does not mean that no prosecutions have occurred; it simply means the source does not record them.

A researcher would need to search the databases of the Northern Territory Local Court and the Supreme Court (on appeal) for cases involving the Mataranka Community Government Council (Litter) By-laws 1987. Possible areas of litigation could include: challenges to the validity of the by-laws (e.g. for unreasonableness or inconsistency with the parent Act); challenges to an authorised officer’s power of entry (e.g. whether “believes on reasonable grounds” was satisfied); disputes over the meaning of “land” and whether a private dwelling is excluded from the s 9 duty; and challenges to infringement notices on procedural grounds (e.g. whether the notice correctly identified the offence).

Given the by-laws are over 35 years old and penalties are low, it is plausible that few defendants have bothered to contest charges. The fixed penalty of $20 provides a strong incentive to pay and avoid court. If a prosecution did proceed, the court might interpret the by-laws strictly against the council. For instance, the definition of “litter” includes a “dead animal”. If a dead animal is on land, is that automatically litter? The occupier might argue it is not “litter” until it is placed there artificially, or that a dead animal that died naturally is not refuse or waste matter. The definition is inclusive and arguably covers any dead animal regardless of origin, but a court could rule otherwise.

No appellate decisions are noted, so the by-laws have not been the subject of high-level judicial scrutiny. This means many interpretive questions remain unsettled.

Land excludes private dwellings - but only “exclusively” used as such. The s 3 definition of “land” includes buildings and temporary structures unless they are “used exclusively as a private dwelling”. If a building has a home office used for business even one day a week, it is arguably not exclusively a private dwelling. The s 9 duty to keep land clean then applies to that building’s interior as well as the surrounding land. An occupier who runs a small business from home may need to ensure that the interior of their dwelling is “clean and free from litter” in a regulatory sense. This is a significant and often overlooked trap.

The bin capacity limit is strict. An occupier who uses a larger bin than 0.05 m³ breaches s 10(1)(a)(i). The by-law provides no waiver power. If a household generates more than 50 litres of waste per collection cycle, they must either arrange multiple bins (each meeting the spec) or take excess waste to the dump. The council cannot authorise a larger bin under these by-laws. This rigid design may encourage illegal dumping or overfilling of the small bin (lids not kept closed, breaching s 10(1)(c)).

Antiseptic cleaning every four weeks. The term “antiseptic” is not defined. Occupiers must use a product that is antiseptic (i.e. antimicrobial). Bleach or similar may be required. The cost and inconvenience of this regular cleaning is real, especially for elderly or disabled occupiers. There is no exemption for low-waste households or for bins that are not soiled.

No cost recovery for work in default. If the council cleans an occupier’s land under s 9(5), the by-laws do not authorise recovery of the cost. The council may have to rely on the parent Act or a separate action for unjust enrichment. This is a trap for the council, but also for the occupier: the council may choose to prosecute rather than clean, leaving the litter problem unresolved.

Service of notices. The by-laws do not specify how a notice under s 9(3) or an infringement notice under s 17(1) must be served. Personal service, post, or leaving at the premises? This could be challenged in court if service is not properly effected. The 14-day period for paying the fixed penalty runs from “the date on which it is served” (s 17(2)). If service is by mail, the date of service is unclear.

Driver liability for passenger litter. Under s 8, the driver “shall not permit or allow litter to fall or otherwise be dropped from the vehicle”. If a passenger throws a cigarette butt out the window, the driver may be deemed to have “allowed” it if they did not stop the passenger. The driver may not even be aware. This creates vicarious liability without any fault element.

The fixed penalty form is a trap for the unwary. The Schedule form gives two options: (a) prosecution, or (b) pay $20. There is no option to request a review, provide an explanation, or dispute the allegation without paying. A person who believes they are innocent may feel compelled to pay $20 to avoid the hassle and risk of prosecution, effectively accepting guilt. If they tick option (a), they elect to be prosecuted - they cannot later change their mind and pay. The form does not advise them to seek legal advice.

No sunset or review clause. The by-laws are perpetual. They have not been updated in substance since 1987. Occupiers may be bound by requirements that are no longer appropriate for modern waste management (e.g. the 50-litre bin limit, the antiseptic cleaning requirement). The council may enforce them selectively, leading to arbitrary outcomes.

Hindrance offence covers any “obstruction, hindering or impeding”. Saying “no” to an authorised officer who wants to enter land without a warrant could be considered hindrance, even if the occupier has a legitimate concern about privacy or the officer’s authority. A person must allow entry upon reasonable belief (s 9(2)), but the burden of proof is on the officer. Refusing entry could be a criminal offence under s 15.

The by-laws do not create a right of appeal. There is no provision for a person to appeal against a notice to clean, an infringement notice, or a decision of the council to prosecute. The only recourse is to defend a prosecution in court.

For occupiers of residential or commercial land within Mataranka community government area:

1. Provide a rubbish bin that has a capacity no greater than 0.05 m³ (50 litres), is moisture-proof and vermin-proof, has a close-fitting lid, and is fitted with handles (s 10(1)(a)). If you need more capacity, you must use multiple identical bins; larger single bins are not permitted.
2. Maintain the bin in good condition. Do not allow it to harbour insects or vermin, become unsightly, cause offensive odours, or become a public health danger (s 10(1)(b)).
3. Keep the lid on at all times except when adding or removing rubbish (s 10(1)(c)).
4. Place all litter produced on the land into the bin (s 10(1)(d)). Do not store rubbish outside the bin. The only exception is lawful destruction by fire of litter capable of being burned (s 10(2)), but check any other applicable fire or environment bylaws before burning.
5. Wrap wet litter (e.g., food scraps, wet tissues, diapers) before putting it in the bin (s 10(1)(e)).
6. Mark the bin with the lot number of your land, your name, and any other information required by an authorised officer or council order (s 10(1)(f)). Comply if directed.
7. Place the bin out on the day(s) and at the time notified by the council, on the footpath outside your land so the collector can access it. After collection, promptly return the bin to your land (s 10(1)(g)). Do not leave it on the footpath otherwise (s 6).
8. Clean the bin with antiseptic at least once every four weeks (s 10(1)(h)). Use an appropriate cleaning product.
9. Keep your land clean and free from litter at all times (s 9(1)). This includes the yard, driveway, garden, and any non-exclusive-use buildings. Inspect regularly. If you receive a notice from an authorised officer, comply within the specified period (s 9(4)). If you cannot comply, you may need to engage a contractor to clean the land. Do not obstruct the officer who may then do the work (s 9(5)).
10. Prevent litter spreading from your land onto public places or adjoining land (s 7). Secure light items, cover bins, and manage windblown material.
11. Do not interfere with rubbish bins belonging to other occupiers or the council, unless you have their consent or are a council agent (s 11).
12. When driving, ensure that no litter falls from your vehicle onto the road or adjoining land. Advise passengers not to throw anything out (s 8).
13. At the council dump, use it only during the hours and days specified, only for the classes of litter allowed, do not remove litter from the dump without written council approval, and follow any direction from an authorised officer about where and how to place litter (s 14).
14. If served with an infringement notice, you have 14 days from the date of service to pay $20 to the clerk of the council. Payment will bar prosecution (s 17). Alternatively, you may allow the matter to proceed to prosecution, where you will have the opportunity to defend the allegation but face a maximum penalty of $200 if convicted. Consider seeking legal advice before deciding. Do not ignore the notice; if you neither pay nor respond, prosecution may follow.
15. Cooperate with authorised officers. Do not obstruct, hinder, or impede them (s 15). If an officer enters your land for inspection under s 9(2), allow access. You may ask for identification and an explanation of the reason for entry. If you believe the entry is unreasonable, note the officer’s name and details and raise the matter with the council later.

For owners of vacant land (no occupier): You are responsible for keeping the land clean and free from litter (s 9(1)). You may also be liable for litter spreading to adjacent properties (s 7). Consider regular inspections and clean-ups. If the council issues a notice, you must comply.

For council officers and contractors: Ensure that after emptying a bin, the lid is replaced tightly and the bin returned to its former location (s 12). Do not remove litter from a dump without written council approval (s 14(d)).