{"id":"F2010L03296","name":"Trade Practices Act 1974 - Consumer Protection Notice No. 7 of 2002 - Permanent Ban on Goods","slug":"trade-practices-act-1974-consumer-protection-notice-no-7-of-2002-permanent-ban-on-goods","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":85598,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2010L03296-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Trade Practices Act 1974 - Consumer Protection Notice No. 7 of 2002 - Permanent Ban on Goods","content":"---\nmeta-content-style-type: text/css\nmeta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8\nmeta-generator: Aspose.Words for .NET 20.2\ntitle: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA\n---\n\n?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\" standalone=\"no\"?>\n\nCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA\n\n \n\nTrade Practices Act 1974\n\n \n\nConsumer Protection Notice No 7 of 2002\n\n \n\nPERMANENT BAN ON GOODS\n\n \n\nI, IAN GORDON CAMPBELL, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, pursuant to section 65C(7) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, IMPOSE a permanent ban on goods of a kind specified below.\n\n \n\nParticulars of goods:\n\n \n\n• Candles with wicks wherein the wicks contain greater than 0.06% lead by weight; and\n\n \n\n• Candle wicks containing greater than 0.06% lead by weight.\n\n \n\n \n\nDated this 22nd day of October 2002.\n\n \n\n \n\nIAN CAMPBELL\n\nParliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer\n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":1,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This notice maintains its original narrow scope. It was clearly intended to ban lead-containing candle wicks specifically, and does exactly that with a precise technical threshold. There is no evidence of scope creep or expansion beyond the original public health purpose."},"complexity_factors":["Extremely short document (under 200 words)","Only 2 defined prohibitions with a single clear threshold (0.06% lead by weight)","No cross-references to other sections beyond the enabling power (section 65C(7))","No conditional logic, exceptions, or exemptions","No interpretation section or defined terms","Simple binary prohibition: goods either meet the criteria or they don't"],"plain_english_summary":"This is a **permanent ban on lead-containing candles and candle wicks** sold in Australia.\n\n**What it does:**\n- Prohibits the sale of candles where the wick contains more than 0.06% lead by weight\n- Also bans standalone candle wicks with the same lead content\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- Manufacturers and importers of candles\n- Retailers selling candles\n- Consumers (who benefit from safer products)\n\n**Why it matters:**\nLead in candle wicks poses serious health risks. When burned, lead wicks release toxic lead particles into the air, which can be inhaled or leave residue on surfaces. Lead exposure is particularly dangerous for children and pregnant women, causing neurological damage and developmental problems. This ban eliminates that hazard from the Australian market permanently.\n\nThis notice was made under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (now largely replaced by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010), using powers that allow the government to ban unsafe consumer goods."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument itself establishes a permanent ban on specified goods; the text contains no indication that it alters or expands a previously stated scope. Without an earlier instrument or statement of original intent provided in the source text, there is no evidence within this document that the scope was changed from some prior form."},"complexity_factors":["Narrow, technical subject matter (single numerical threshold: >0.06% lead by weight).","Short, simple legal form (permanent ban) with a small number of operative clauses.","Absence of procedural details in the instrument (no testing standard, sampling rules, or transitional arrangements specified), which shifts complexity to enforcement and compliance practice outside the text.","Effects cut across supply chains (manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers) creating operational and commercial complexity despite legal simplicity.","Potential measurement and laboratory verification issues (technical testing of lead content) create practical complexity for compliance."],"plain_english_summary":"What this instrument does, mechanically\n\n- The notice (signed 22 October 2002 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) imposes a permanent legal ban on two categories of goods: (a) candles whose wicks contain more than 0.06% lead by weight; and (b) candle wicks that contain more than 0.06% lead by weight. The ban is made under the authority of section 65C(7) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (as stated in the notice).\n\nWho it affects and who decides\n\n- The immediate regulated parties are producers, importers, distributors and retailers of candles and candle wicks (the supply chain for those goods). They must ensure goods they manufacture, import or sell do not fall within the banned categories (i.e. wick lead content strictly greater than 0.06% by weight). The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer exercised the statutory power in s 65C(7) to impose the ban (the notice names the official who made the instrument).\n\nHow it works, in practical terms\n\n- The instrument is a blanket, permanent prohibition on goods meeting the specified technical description. Its operative test is the concentration of lead in the wick (greater than 0.06% by weight). The ban covers both finished candles (where the wick exceeds that lead threshold) and standalone wicks that exceed that threshold.\n\nCompliance, costs and behaviour changes (mechanical effects)\n\n- Producers and importers will need systems to verify wick lead content is at or below 0.06% by weight for goods they place on the market. That creates measurable compliance activities: testing or supplier assurance, modification of supply chains, product redesign or reformulation, and disposal or remediation of existing stock that exceeds the limit. Retailers will need to avoid offering banned goods and may need to identify and remove non‑compliant stock.\n\n- Those supply‑side costs are borne directly by manufacturers, importers and retailers. Consumers could be indirectly affected if supply adjustments change availability or price, but the notice itself does not set prices or compensatory measures.\n\nTechnical and administrative factors the notice does not specify\n\n- The notice sets a precise numeric threshold (greater than 0.06% lead by weight) but does not specify in the text how lead content is to be measured, what testing standards or sampling regimes apply, or transitional arrangements for existing stock. The notice also does not set out penalties or enforcement processes within its text; it relies on the authority of s 65C(7) to create the ban.\n\nTrade‑offs, incentives and implementation risks (source‑grounded observations)\n\n- Incentives: the ban makes it necessary for commercial parties to avoid or eliminate wicks with lead above the threshold; manufacturers are incentivised to source or make lead‑free wicks or to substantiate compliance with testing.\n\n- Costs and opportunity cost: compliance (testing, product change, stock disposal) is a direct cost to suppliers; resources spent on compliance are not available for other business uses.\n\n- Implementation risks and discretion: because the notice does not specify measurement or testing standards in the text, administrative discretion, enforcement practice or external regulatory guidance will matter in practice for how compliance is verified and regulated. The instrument itself does not record those operational details.\n\nSource and scope notes\n\n- The notice is short and technical. It is expressed as a permanent ban and cites the statutory power used to make it (s 65C(7) of the Trade Practices Act 1974). The text of the instrument does not include an explanatory rationale or operational guidance (testing, enforcement, or transitional arrangements)."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/trade-practices-act-1974-consumer-protection-notice-no-7-of-2002-permanent-ban-on-goods","history":"/api/acts/trade-practices-act-1974-consumer-protection-notice-no-7-of-2002-permanent-ban-on-goods/history","analysis":"/api/acts/trade-practices-act-1974-consumer-protection-notice-no-7-of-2002-permanent-ban-on-goods/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/trade-practices-act-1974-consumer-protection-notice-no-7-of-2002-permanent-ban-on-goods/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/trade-practices-act-1974-consumer-protection-notice-no-7-of-2002-permanent-ban-on-goods/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/trade-practices-act-1974-consumer-protection-notice-no-7-of-2002-permanent-ban-on-goods/documents"}}