43 replies to this topic

[Shane-o88]

They didn't remove it, he told me today that he copped a mouthful while draining the tanks and it made him spew.

[werdna]

No sympathy here.

This reminds me of a certain person who bragged about importing boa constrictors then got upset when he was raided.

It isn't fisheries job to clean up after themselves, its his fault for having a fish he knew was not allowed.

 

There is no RSPCA issue, fisheries have done their job, they aren't supposed to be here so were forced to kill them.

Simple.

[malawiman85]

Yep not their job but it is their legal responsibility none the less. 

 

5.11. Employer etc. to obtain MSDS for hazardous substance etc. 

 (1) If a hazardous substance is to be used at a workplace then a 

person who, at the workplace, is an employer, the main 

contractor or a self-employed person must — 

 (a) before, or upon, the first occasion on which the 

hazardous substance is supplied to the workplace — 

 (i) obtain from the supplier of the hazardous 

substance an MSDS for the hazardous substance; 

and 

 (ii) consult with all persons who might be exposed to 

the hazardous substance at the workplace about 

the intention to use the hazardous substance at 

the workplace and the safest method of using the 

hazardous substance; 

 and 

 ( ensure that the MSDS for the hazardous substance is 

readily available to any person who might be exposed to 

the hazardous substance at the workplace; 

 

Penalty for a person who commits the offence as an employee: 

the regulation 1.15 penalty. 

 Penalty in any other case: the regulation 1.16 penalty. 

 

... In this case Department of fisheries is the employer and the individuals acting on their behalf, the employeess.

 

 

 

Edited by malawiman85, 21 February 2014 - 02:33 PM.

[MrLeifBeaver]

Malawiman85 I don't think you can link Employer legal responisbilities to Private Properties.

 

I think you might need to find a legal act with reference to Accessing Private Properties to dispose of Noxious Fishes or something like that.

Fisheries would have limitations to what they can and can't do at a private property though. I'll have a look to see if I can find the legislation.

[malawiman85]

Of course you can. An aged care nurse works at a private residence, so does Jims Mowing.

Before a nurse or carer starts work at a residence a risk assessment must be conducted under OSH law, etc.

[malawiman85]

Not saying that under fishy legislation there arent references to entering private property. Hazardous Substances are clearly an OSH issue without limitation to private property.

 

Anyway sidetracking the OP's thread.

Edited by malawiman85, 21 February 2014 - 03:52 PM.

[Shane-o88]

Well I think it's bullcrap, them friggen shrimp are already here and the ones from canada didn't even get sent at all from what I gather. They were coming from within Australia all the ones he had.

Occ health safety laws have big fines and even jail terms so that is good to know.

MM85 will pass that info on to him, I'm hoping he can get some compensation out of them pricks, what they done was cruel and uncalled for. Surely they could of just taken over the room and tested at least something before killing everything that was already in Australia anyway. How are they even meant to know if there is a shrimp disease in Australia if they don't test nothing??

Anyway I know they were doing their job but I hope he still manages to get a bit of compo for all the time and effort he put into his hobby.

Edited by Shane-o88, 21 February 2014 - 04:56 PM.

[slink]

Yep not their job but it is their legal responsibility none the less. 
 
5.11. Employer etc. to obtain MSDS for hazardous substance etc. 
 (1) If a hazardous substance is to be used at a workplace then a 
person who, at the workplace, is an employer, the main 
contractor or a self-employed person must  
 (a) before, or upon, the first occasion on which the 
hazardous substance is supplied to the workplace  
 (i) obtain from the supplier of the hazardous 
substance an MSDS for the hazardous substance; 
and 
 (ii) consult with all persons who might be exposed to 
the hazardous substance at the workplace about 
the intention to use the hazardous substance at 
the workplace and the safest method of using the 
hazardous substance; 
 and 
 ( ensure that the MSDS for the hazardous substance is 
readily available to any person who might be exposed to 
the hazardous substance at the workplace; 
 

Penalty for a person who commits the offence as an employee: 
the regulation 1.15 penalty. 
 Penalty in any other case: the regulation 1.16 penalty. 
 
... In this case Department of fisheries is the employer and the individuals acting on their behalf, the employeess.

Nope this is not relevant in this case.

I hope he still manages to get a bit of compo for all the time and effort he put into his hobby.

Will never happen he has done something illegal I would be watching his letter box for fines as well because they will complete all relevant reports to give to the head of the department and it's his choice if fines will be issued.

[werdna]

I agree, your dads mate isn't the employee, employer, the main contractor or a self-employed person

And why let something obviously toxic in your mouth?
There are more ways to drain a tank than sucking on a hose.

[malawiman85]

No guys his dads mate isnt. Fisheries are the employer, they have employees doing their job at that place of work. They create a risk by using a hazardous substance they still need to control that risk.

[Morley Aquariums]

Vikron s is another that is listed on the daff website. Calcium hyperchlorite is commonly used in all sorts of water purification. I have no idea what they use, but the above 2 are most likely.
You will find that as a governent department they have a huge amount if risk analysis & ohs stuff done prior to using any products (it is a beaurocracy after all). Check the daff website for information on sterilizing techniques as well as all the relative info on biosecurity measures & actions.
I am sure There will be no compensation & if smuggled & he resisted as suggested he will be very lucky to avoid prosecution. Jail terms have been applied in recent times for smuggling shrimp ( seen in an earlier post with links on this forum from memory).
Before anyone gets too fired up i think more information is needed on this case. If supplied locally then just the same kneejerk overreaction waste of time we gave already seen from fisheries, if smuggled then a justified biisecurity action imo.

[slink]

Fisheries are the employer, they have employees doing their job at that place of work. They create a risk by using a hazardous substance they still need to control that risk.

still not relevant as Paul has said they would have done risk assessments and have all relevant MSDS's for their employees which is their legal responsibility.

[malawiman85]

Read again slink it says "all persons who might be exposed to the hazardous substance at the workplace". Is his dads mate not a person at the place of work of fisheries officers?

[werdna]

No, the dads mate is someone who broke the law and forced authorities to take drastic measures

[malawiman85]

No doubt the case mate.

[Kleinz]

 I have little idea of the actual situation in what was smuggled or kept and why fisheries raided this guy in particular. I'd like to know more.

 

That said, there are limits to guarding against people's stupidity. For instance, Caltex cannot be expected to put measures in place to stop someone drinking their petrol.

 

I would  submit that anyone who tries to mouth siphon a tank full of stuff they already know is poison has little recourse.

[malawiman85]

The point I was making was in jest suggesting it would be ironic if the varmint shrimp smuggler in question was to turn around and make a profit out of the whole affair.

Im not really in the business of offering legal advice to smugglers... I was just thinking if i got busted for keeping MTW's as others have, I would try and return fire.

 

Worksafe have successfully prosecuted government departments and its employees before for breaches of OSH legislation.

DCS was prosecuted because a guy died in the back of a paddywagon... He had broken the law and DCS and G4S were just doing their jobs same as any other day and yet WorkSafe prosecuted three individuals and the Department as the employer.

The degree of guilt is not based on the consequence (fatality in the example I used or possibility of dermatitis or respiratory irritation in the case of the intrepid and possibly none to bright shrimp smuggler) The consequence is only considered in establishing the suitability of a penalty.

Whilst it all sounds stupid, there was most likely a breach and if Worksafe felt at all motivated (And I am 100% sure they arent), I'm quite sure they would get a prosecution.

[slink]

MM85 the guys at work are going chuckle about that reply

[malawiman85]

Yay for them.

[Shane-o88]

Seeing as you all really have very little details to go on, It looks as though werdna is just full of assumptions with no real facts to go on.

I too hope the ironic happens and he turns this back on them, I'd love to see the fisheries get done.