Thursday 18 November 2010
Hansard of the Legislative Council


In Committee

Mr FINCH - Leader, clause 29(3)(c) prevents a person or company from bleeding its operations in Tasmania of funds to frustrate the recovery of penalties for breaches of the consumer law by having the funds sent to a place outside Tasmania. However, the objective of preventing the funds being transferred may be frustrated by the provision of clause 29(6), which provides:

'An order under this section made in the absence of the person against whom the order is sought may not operate for a period of more than 30 days.'

Does that mean that the order is not effective until 30 days after the granting of the order or does it mean that the order will only be in force for 30 days? The provision needs attention to ensure that the order operates immediately to prevent the funds being transferred.

Mr PARKINSON - I will take some advice.

The answer to the honourable member's question is that he has to read the provision literally. It means that if an order is made in the absence of the person against whom it is to be enforced - in other words, he has not had the opportunity to answer the allegation against him - then that order can only remain in force for a period of 30 days. Obviously if he fronts up under that time to contest it then it would be a period of less than 30 days. If he is not around, has not been a party to those proceedings then, if you like, it is a fairness provision for the person against whom the order has been made. It will only be in force for 30 days then it will lapse and if somebody wants to obtain the order again they have to apply for it again and hopefully find him that time.

Mr FINCH - Leader, does that mean that actually puts a stop to those funds being transferred when that order comes into place -

Mr Parkinson - For a period of 30 days.

Mr FINCH - or until the questions have been answered or it has been prosecuted?

Mr Parkinson - That is right.

Clause 29 agreed to.