Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7160 together:

(1)   Heading to clause 275, page 189 (line 1), omit the heading, substitute:

275 Effect of compliance with regulations or compliance codes

[deemed compliance with Act and regulations]

(2)   Clause 275, page 189 (lines 2 to 12), omit subclauses (1) to (3), substitute:

  (1)   If:

  (a)   the regulations or a compliance code make provision for or with respect to a duty or obligation imposed by this Act or the regulations; and

  (b)   a person complies with the regulations or compliance code to the extent that it makes that provision;

then, for the purposes of this Act and the regulations, the person is taken to have complied with this Act or the regulations, as the case may be, in relation to that duty or obligation.

[deemed compliance with Act and regulations]

Currently, as I understand it, we have codes of practice, which are given high importance. What this amendment seeks to do is accept compliance with a code of practice as evidence of compliance with required safety standards. As I understand it, there are a number of codes of practice in existence and it would seem fair, especially fair, if I might say, to small businesses, if compliance with a code of practice were deemed to be compliance with a required safety standard. What could occur, as I understand it, under this legislation is that in proceedings a code of practice could be admissible as evidence of whether or not a duty or obligation had been complied with and that a court could have regard to the code as evidence of what is known about a hazard or a risk. It seems to the coalition that it would be helpful if a person could be taken to have complied with this act or the regulations in relation to that duty or obligation so that there was no grey area in relation to compliance with these codes of practice.