Dear Editor,
I am writing to say I do not agree with some of the proposed new Litchfield Council bylaws.
From the beginning Litchfield was a council that prided itself in not being over regulatory and not taking on responsibilities that are the government’s.
But we now find the council is trying to add more bylaws to its existing repertoire, and one that is most interesting is bylaw 5L.
It says a person who owns or occupies a premise commits an offence if they keep rubbish – which by the council’s definition includes organic matter – or discarded goods, in open areas on the premises, other than in a bin. And /or allows the premises to become overgrown with vegetation, attract reptiles, pests – which the council explains includes mosquitoes in unmaintained pools – or vermin or be a fire hazard.
Firstly, the NT Fire service and Bush Fires NT control fires and fire hazards not the council.
Secondly weeds are controlled by the Environment Department’s weeds branch and not the council.
And thirdly, mosquito control comes under the Health Department etymology branch and not the council.
There is no definition of cluttered. There is no definition of vegetation. Are native trees included?
How are you going to measure the increase in reptiles caused by overgrown vegetation?
So is a pile of organic plant material, pruning or dead timber or wood chips or compost, included in the definition of rubbish and need to be in a bin?
Who’s going to drive around inspecting properties in the rural area for discarded goods or unmaintained swimming pools?
Whoever they are, they’ll be popular…not. Especially if they try to come onto a property to see if your pool is breeding mozzies.
In bylaw 5M the council also wants to have a say about advertising signs on private property. That is clearly a matter that comes under the control of the Lands Department, not the council.
If the council doesn’t like a sign, contact the department. It’s not council’s responsibility.
Don’t expand the council’s bureaucracy by taking over the government’s responsibilities. Stick to the basics of local government.
How much will these bylaws add to administrative costs including legal costs?
Why not encourage people to clean up their blocks and make it easier to take their rubbish to the tip, or maybe reduced rates in return for cleaning up instead of the big brother approach?
The council seems to have little understanding as to why people live out here and it’s not to be over regulated. It’s about the freedom. Keep rural rural.
The council needs to support that and not copy Darwin and Palmerston.
Gerry Wood, Howard Springs
If you want your letter to the editor published send it to ntindependent@protonmail.com. Please include your name, address and phone number for verification. We will only publish your name and suburb or town. We do reserve the right to edit the letter for length and clarity purposes. PRIVACY POLICY: You can find our privacy policy by clicking here.
As usual, Gerry hits the nail on the head. Local government in Australia is noted for petty small-mindedness, over bureaucratization and personal aggrandizement. Litchfield Council, for the most part – although by no means entirely – has avoided these tendencies.
Maybe, however, the worm is turning.