Thursday 18 November 2010
Hansard of the Legislative Council
AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW (TASMANIA) BILL 2010 (No. 37)
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
Mr FINCH - Leader, does that mean that actually puts a stop
to those funds being transferred when that order comes into
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.