Tuesday 22 November 2005

DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES (SAFE HANDLING) BILL 2005 (No. 64)

In Committee

Mr FINCH - I want to clarify something if you would please, honourable Leader. Clauses 23 and 24 relating to the manufacturer and designer or importer of a handling system will really have no applicability unless the manufacturer, designer or the importer resides in Tasmania or has business premises in Tasmania. It is not stated there.

Mr Aird - Do you want to argue that?

Mr FINCH - No, I am just highlighting that. Can you explain that to me?

Mr Aird - Can you say that again?

Mr FINCH - Clauses 23 and 24 relating to the manufacturer, designer or importer of a handling system would have no applicability unless the manufacturer, the designer or the importer resides in Tasmania or has business premises in Tasmania.

Mr AIRD - This legislation applies to what occurs in Tasmania. Are you saying that someone who lives in Melbourne who has their head office in Melbourne who actually manufactures the product and brings it into Tasmania cannot be charged under this?

Mr Finch - I am asking you for clarification.

Mr AIRD - You do not have to reside here. If there is a head office in Melbourne and there is something manufactured and it is brought into this State and it proves to be in contravention of this act then we can issue proceedings against them. You do not have to live here.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 -
(Minister may approve codes of practice)

Mr FINCH - Clause 27 provides for the minister to publish an approved code of practice in any way that he thinks fit. Would it be more appropriate that the approval of a code of practice is to be advertised in the three newspapers and the Gazette, which is usual practice?

Mr AIRD - There are different classifications. This code of practice has a different status to a regulation. It is a more flexible arrangement. The legislation points out that the minister has to consult with those for which a code of practice needs to apply. It has a different level of emphasis. It is a legitimate part of an act such as this where there will be other regulations. The regulations will be subject to it but a code of practice is not seen to be a heavy instrument in terms of compliance. It is more in tune with the object of the legislation: to work with the industry and the employees to try to get a suitable outcome. That is why it is done this way. There is other legislation where you have codes of practice as well. Workplace Health and Safety have a similar provision. It is not unique to this legislation.

Clause 27 agreed to.