Wilkinson Kate: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:836] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I also rise to speak in relation to Part 3. Like my colleague Dr Hutchison I would like to refer to clause 22 which inserts new section 97B “Enforcement of Act in respect of hazardous substances in place of work” which as Dr Hutchison has very wisely mentioned includes farms. I will take a bit of a different tack on this however. But before I do so I will refer to another learned colleague—we have so many on this side of the Chamber—Mr Eric Roy. He referred to the totally discretionary nature of the appointment of enforcement officers which gives no certainty at all to this legislation. My point however is that this provision states that the enforcement agency “may appoint enforcement officers in accordance with this Act who may exercise the powers of inspectors under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992”. 
We all know of ludicrous examples under that Health and Safety in Employment Act which hinders progress rather than helps progress and which discourages personal responsibility rather than encouraging it. We have heard in the media the stories of the cancelled lolly scrambles and the cancelled pipe band marches which are examples of how totally ludicrous and ridiculous some of the legislation passed through this House actually is. But let us look at it from a more legal point of view and consider the definition of “place of work”. Place of work under the Health and Safety in Employment Act as we all know includes vehicles. It includes motor vehicles trucks and tractors. It includes harvesters. If any of those motor vehicles happen to be carrying some spray a hazardous substance who will be responsible for that? Will it be the owner or will it be the driver? I think that that adds to some of the uncertainty of this legislation. 
My other question in relation to enforcement is will those enforcement officers then have the powers of the police to stop and inspect the vehicles and to check whether they are indeed carrying a hazardous substance? That is what they will need to do under this bill. My question really is: does that mean we will need more than the 1000 front-line police now promised by this Government and at what cost? It is another cost that I do not believe has been thought of under this Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. 
My other concern in relation to this bill is clause 29 “Notification of hazardous substance injuries”. That clause adds more compliance costs to our already totally compliance – cost ridden country. It provides that if a medical practitioner finds that a person who is not admitted to a hospital is suffering from an injury caused by a hazardous substance the medical practitioner must give notice of the injury to the medical officer of health. What does “injury” mean? Does it mean that if a person sniffs a bit of spray and feels a bit queasy and goes to the doctor then the doctor has to refer the incident to the medical officer of health. 
 When the medical officer of health knows that someone has felt a bit queasy from sniffing a bit of spray as by mistake some of us from rural backgrounds have been prone to do will this not then lead to more red tape more bureaucracy more compliance costs more work and more paperwork? Is that really a sensible option? I do not believe that this Government has thought through the ramifications of requiring medical practitioners to report any injury caused by a hazardous substance no matter how small or how serious to the medical officer of health. The common theme through this legislation is the cost of compliance. We will have compliance costs in trying to enforce the legislation in places of work not only on farms but also in vehicles. These compliance costs will affect farmers who are already lumbered with so many other costs. We heard that the cost of this legislation alone adds $3000 costs to farmers.