Page 7 - 1981 News Clippings

s National Award-Winning Speech, 1981

common littering offenders, those between the container as defined by the specific county
s the type ages of 15 and 23. council.
of person who reads the message on the side Within this age period, littering habits From this definition of litter that covers
thinks decline to the depths of degradation. so wide an area we can appreciate the problem
as he chucks WHY? in trying to police and enforce the litter laws.
Perhaps it is a means of revolt against But we can be assured action is being taken.
There are amongst us contentious authority, or perhaps they are in the final stage Although the harsh maximum penalties
individuals who take those free litter bags, fill of personal development. of a $750 fine for depositing dangerous litter,
them up to capacity, then heave them out of Whatever the reasons, we can hurt those or one month’s imprisonment are seldom
people with monetary punishment implacably used, the councils do provide bins, street
How then do we cope with the litter that applied. cleaners, litter campaigns, posters and YES!
s In Singapore, fining litter offenders $200 even speech competitions!
has produced an astounding result unequalled In addition to that literature can be
anywhere in the world - a litter-free country! obtained free from all county councils, and all
s lethargic response to Obviously it is important that this form of litter officers are available to speak to
litter is the main reason for our present control be introduced into New Zealand, and it individuals and institutions, such as schools,
has been. Not on a personal level, but on a factories and businesses.
Educating people would seem to be the National level. While monetary punishment must be
answer. The New Zealand Litter Council Legislation concerning litter was used to cripple litter, and the shock treatment
attempted this with some posters and very introduced into New Zealand in 1968 and was of the Nilverm type could help enormously,
Only Lazy People amended in 1979. It consists of a litter control these are negative ways of keeping our
and whose most fearsome statement plan for N.Z. and an assessment and country clean.
evaluation of an alternate means of litter Perhaps a more positive approach are
control. rewards and incentives?
What we need is something stronger to However, not many of us are aware of A refund system on all containers, such
bring home the message, because it would this litter act, as only Hamilton, Auckland, as we have with glass bottles, might be
seem society has programmed us so that we Manukau, Orewa and 13 other county possible. It has proven effective because glass
will only react to punishment, violence and councils have adopted the legislation by is a minor source of litter today.
implementing a strategy of fines to combat the A cash deduction off a product with the
Now, if those three concepts were crisis. return of the empty packet is another positive
incorporated into the media (television, for Usually a $20 fine is imposed upon any approach to the problem.

instance) New Zealanders would raise their person caught littering. Unfortunately the fine But - whether we use the negative
heads and the obnoxious head of litter would is not instant but is based upon the approach of shock treatment and monetary
infringement notice system, and the offender punishment, the positive method of rewards
How about implementing this idea on has 14 days to pay. and incentives, or both, N.Z. must get off their
A litter fine cannot be undone by merely butts and get in behind this war that is being
The portrayal of the agony, the decay, the picking up the litter. The offence is in the waged against litter and all of its appalling
throwing down of it. atrocities.
The litter officer for Hamilton has Are we the type of people that tolerate
Or an advertisement depicting the defined litter as “Anything no longer required filth and disgust? Are we prepared to let litter,
amputation of an arm or a leg bone sceptic by by man and dumped in an inappropriate area.” the devastation of beauty and ultimate
the fatal injury The actual fine comes within five destruction of the environment, run rife in our
headings: country?
This kind of treatment proved effective in 1. The pedestrian that litters. A litter-free N.Z. is not impossible.
With 2. The motorist that litters. Singapore proved that, and so too must we. I
riddled sheep that always came on 3. Spills from uncovered trailers and know we can do it because - if anybody can,
time! If it worked for Nilverm it commercial vehicles. the Kiwi can!
4. Accumulating litter and then
there might be those who depositing it in an inappropriate area. SO C’MON, PUT IT IN A CAN!
would ignore even this, namely the most 5. The putting out of the wrong refuse