This instrument rests on a small number of discrete legal concepts and cross‑references. First, it establishes a statutory chemical control area; the whole of Tasmania is declared the chemical control area (cl 4). That territorial designation makes the Order’s prohibitions applicable across the State.

Second, the Order conditions lawful spraying on the existence of a permit “granted and in force under section 29 of the Act” (see cl 5, cl 6 and cl 7(1)). The Order itself does not set permit criteria or process; it relies on the permit power and procedures found in the referenced provision of the parent Act. Practitioners must therefore read section 29 of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1995 to know how and on what terms permits can be obtained.

Third, the instrument uses schedules to specify which chemical products are regulated and in what way. Schedule 1 lists products that cannot be sprayed except under a permit (cl 5). Schedule 2 imposes a date‑bound restriction: an agricultural product containing 2,4‑D may not be sprayed from 15 September in any year to 15 April in the next year unless under a permit (cl 6; Schedule 2). Schedule 3 prohibits aerial spraying of chemical products that are listed, or that contain a listed constituent, in Schedule 7 to the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons, as that term is used in the Agvet Regulations of Tasmania (cl 7(1); Schedule 3). Schedule 4 lists three poisons (strychnine, potassium cyanide and sodium cyanide) that cannot be sprayed for vertebrate pest control (cl 8(1); Schedule 4).

Fourth, the Order creates an independent duty to comply with an industry Code of Practice for aerial spraying. Clause 7(2) makes it an offence to perform aerial spraying in contravention of the Code of Practice for Aerial Spraying in Tasmania “published from time to time by the Council,” with a penalty of up to 100 penalty units.

Fifth, the instrument provides a narrow operational exemption in cl 8(2): subclause (1) (the ban on spraying certain chemicals for vertebrate pest control) does not apply to an inspector authorised by the Chief Veterinary Officer to perform that spraying for vertebrate pest control. The Order therefore contemplates a role for authorised public officers acting under veterinary authority.

Sixth, the Acts Interpretation Act 1931 applies to interpretation of the Order as if it were by‑laws (cl 3(2)), which affects how drafting, powers and references are read. Lastly, the Order is silent on the monetary value of a penalty unit, on administrative fees for permits or on the procedural rules for permit grant and revocation; those details are provided elsewhere in law and administration (not in the Order itself). The Order is administered by the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries (noted in the Gazette notice).

The Order frames obligations in terms of “a person” performing agricultural spraying, and so applies directly to any individual or entity that does agricultural spraying within Tasmania (see cl 5, cl 6, cl 7(1), cl 8(1)). That will include landholders, farm contractors, commercial spray operators, aerial operators, and any other person who undertakes spraying operations. The instrument does not define an employer/employee distinction; the prohibition language targets the act of performing agricultural spraying, so both operator and the person who performs or causes the spraying may fall within the prohibition language (cl 7(2) also uses “perform, cause to be performed or allow to be performed”).

Permittees under section 29 of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1995 are central actors. Several provisions make lawful spraying conditional on a permit “granted and in force under section 29 of the Act” (cl 5; cl 6; cl 7(1)). The Order therefore imposes duties and compliance steps on entities that intend to use listed chemicals. It also places potential enforcement exposure on persons who engage aerial spraying, because Schedule 3 specifically targets aerial applications and cl 7(2) targets compliance with the Code of Practice.

The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries administers the Order (Gazette notice). The Order also contemplates roles for a Council that publishes the aerial spraying Code and for the Chief Veterinary Officer, who can authorise an inspector to perform spraying of Schedule 4 chemicals for vertebrate pest control (cl 8(2)). Those public authorities therefore have decision‑making, oversight and operational functions: the Council sets the Code; the Chief Veterinary Officer can authorise inspections and certain operations; and the administering department handles the instrument’s administration.

Anyone considering chemical use in Tasmanian agriculture must therefore check: whether the product or its constituents appear in Schedules 1-4 or in the external Schedule 7 referenced in Schedule 3; whether the activity involves aerial spraying; and whether the timing falls within the 2,4‑D restricted period (15 September to 15 April) in Schedule 2. If any of those apply, the person will usually need a permit under section 29 of the Act, or may rely on the narrow inspector exemption in cl 8(2). Finally, persons who breach the prohibitions face fines measured in penalty units (cl 5-8).

Duties imposed by the Order are expressed in negative (prohibitory) terms and coupled to a permitting regime that is external to the instrument. The core duties are:

• Do not spray products listed in Schedule 1 unless the spraying is “conducted in accordance with a permit granted and in force under section 29 of the Act” (cl 5). Schedule 1 enumerates specific chemical substances (4‑aminopyridine hydrochloride; alpha and beta chloralose; mevinphos; fenthion when used for control of birds; and pindone).

• Do not spray products listed in Schedule 2 during the period shown next to them unless the spraying is in accordance with a section 29 permit (cl 6). Schedule 2 sets a seasonal prohibition on products containing 2,4‑D from 15 September through 15 April the following year.

• Do not perform aerial spraying of products listed in Schedule 3 except where the spraying is conducted in accordance with a section 29 permit (cl 7(1)). Schedule 3 ties the aerial prohibition to substances listed in Schedule 7 to the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons as understood under the Agvet Regulations of Tasmania.

• Do not spray the chemical products listed in Schedule 4 for the purpose of controlling vertebrate pests (cl 8(1)). Schedule 4 lists strychnine, potassium cyanide and sodium cyanide. The only express exception is found in cl 8(2), which exempts an inspector authorised by the Chief Veterinary Officer who is undertaking that spraying for vertebrate pest control.

• Comply with the Code of Practice for Aerial Spraying published by the Council; cl 7(2) makes it an offence to “perform, cause to be performed or allow to be performed any aerial spraying … in contravention of the Code of Practice for Aerial Spraying in Tasmania published from time to time by the Council.”

Rights and procedural features under the Order are limited and mostly derivative of other instruments. The Order gives no internal right to a permit; it requires compliance with permits “granted and in force under section 29 of the Act,” thereby importing any procedural rights, grounds of review, conditions and appeal mechanisms that exist under section 29 and the parent Act. The instrument itself confers a limited operational right to authorised inspectors: cl 8(2) states that cl 8(1) does not apply to an inspector authorised by the Chief Veterinary Officer. The Order does not specify how authorisation occurs or the criteria for authorisation; those details will derive from the parent Act or administrative practice.

Obligations are framed as criminal (penalty) offences with monetary fines expressed in penalty units (cl 5-8). The Order does not create administrative penalty regimes nor civil sanctioning alternatives within its text. It also does not set out record‑keeping, notification, labelling or buffer zone duties; such measures, if applicable, would be found elsewhere in the Act, in the permit conditions under section 29, or in the Council’s Code of Practice.

Finally, the Acts Interpretation Act 1931 applies to the interpretation of the Order “as if the order were by‑laws” (cl 3(2)). This affects statutory construction and how references to persons, offences and powers are read.

Penalties in the Order are exclusively fines expressed in penalty units; the instrument does not specify custodial penalties or non‑monetary sanctions. The relevant provisions are:

• Clause 5 (prohibition on spraying Schedule 1 products without a permit) carries a penalty of a fine not exceeding 50 penalty units.

• Clause 6 (seasonal prohibition on 2,4‑D without a permit) carries a penalty of a fine not exceeding 50 penalty units.

• Clause 7(1) (prohibition on aerial spraying Schedule 3 products without a permit) carries a penalty of a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units.

• Clause 7(2) (performing, causing or allowing aerial spraying in contravention of the Council’s Code of Practice) carries a penalty of a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units.

• Clause 8(1) (prohibition on spraying Schedule 4 chemicals for vertebrate pest control) carries a penalty of a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units.

The Order does not itself set out who enforces or prosecutes the offences, but the instrument is administered by the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries (Gazette notice). The text also refers to an inspector authorised by the Chief Veterinary Officer (cl 8(2)), implying that inspectors and veterinary authorities play an operational role in executing and, where authorised, performing spraying activities that would otherwise be prohibited. The Council that publishes the Code of Practice is given regulatory influence by cl 7(2); breach of that Code is an offence independently of the permit regime.

Because penalties are stated in penalty units, the monetary dollar value of a breach will depend on the statutory definition of a penalty unit at the relevant time. That definition is not contained in the Order and must be located in the relevant penalty unit provisions in Tasmanian law. The Order does not specify how enforcement will be initiated, what evidentiary standards apply, or whether enforcement is administrative or criminal in nature beyond the stated fines.

The Order provides no express private right of action, no administrative review procedure within its text for refusals or revocations of permits, and no statutory enforcement schedule or time limits for proceedings. Those procedural elements, if they exist, must be found in the parent Act’s permit provisions (section 29 and related sections) and in the broader administrative law and prosecutorial framework.

The Order is cross‑referential and operates as part of a layered legal framework. The principal statutory cross‑references are:

• The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1995 (the “Act”), which is defined in cl 3(1) and is the source of the permit power relied on throughout the Order (references to permits under section 29 of the Act appear in cl 5, cl 6 and cl 7(1)). The Order requires that spraying be “conducted in accordance with a permit granted and in force under section 29 of the Act,” thereby importing the permit criteria, application processes, conditions and any appeal or review mechanisms contained in the Act.

• The Acts Interpretation Act 1931 is applied to the interpretation of the Order “as if the order were by‑laws” (cl 3(2)). That application affects how defined terms, temporal provisions and statutory references are read.

• The Agvet Regulations of Tasmania and the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons are incorporated by reference through Schedule 3, which prohibits aerial spraying of “a chemical product which is listed, or which contains a constituent that is listed, in Schedule 7 to the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons, within the meaning of the Agvet Regulations of Tasmania” (Schedule 3). That means changes to the Agvet Regulations, the Standard or Schedule 7 will alter which products are captured by Schedule 3.

• The Code of Practice for Aerial Spraying in Tasmania, published “from time to time by the Council,” is made legally significant by cl 7(2); contravention of the Code is an offence. The Order therefore imports standards established by an external industry or advisory body (the Council), rendering compliance with that Code a statutory duty.

• The Order makes a specific operational reference to the Chief Veterinary Officer and inspectors (cl 8(2)). The role and powers of the Chief Veterinary Officer and authorised inspectors will be defined by other statutory or administrative instruments, which determine when the exception in cl 8(2) applies.

• The Order is silent on penalty unit value, permit fees and the procedural mechanics for permit grant or revocation. These matters fall to other statutory provisions or administrative instruments.

Practitioners must therefore read the Order together with the parent Act, the Agvet Regulations, the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons (and particularly Schedule 7 to that Standard), any Tasmanian instrument defining penalty units, the Council’s Code of Practice as published, and any administrative or departmental procedures relating to the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. Because the Order relies on external permit and scheduling instruments, amendments to those instruments will change the practical scope of the Order without amending the Order itself.

The instrument contains its own short history statements. It was notified in the Gazette on 25 December 1996 (final line of the Order). The text records that it “takes effect on the day proclaimed under section 2 of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1995” (cl 2), so its commencement is contingent on a proclamation under the Act; the Order does not itself state the commencement date other than that mechanism. The copying of the Order in this source shows no subsequent textual amendments or variation notes inside the Order text provided. The instrument ends with a standard publication note that it is administered by the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries; no later amendment or repeal is recorded in the text provided.

Because the Order imports other instruments (the Agvet Regulations, the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons, and the Council’s Code of Practice), changes to those instruments may function as de facto amendments to the Order’s practical coverage. The Order itself does not provide a schedule of amendments or indicate any historical variation clauses. To determine whether the Order has been amended since initial notification, one must check the official consolidated or current legislative database and the parent Act for any instruments revoking or replacing it, which is outside the Order’s own text.

The Order expresses its interpretation regime (Acts Interpretation Act 1931 applies as if the Order were by‑laws) and defines the Act it relates to (cl 3). There are no textual amendment clauses, transitional arrangements, or temporal repeal clauses within the instrument as provided.

The Order as presented contains no litigation history, no references to cases, and no mention of judicial interpretation. It does not name any decisions or provide examples of how courts have treated its provisions. The Order’s text therefore contains no internal record of being litigated or interpreted in reported decisions.

Because the Order cross‑references external instruments and the parent Act, any litigation touching this Order would likely appear in cases construing the parent Act’s permit provisions (section 29) or in disputes about the content or enforcement of the Council’s Code of Practice, the Agvet Regulations, or the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons. None of those decisions are included in or cited by the Order itself. Practitioners wanting to know how courts have applied the Order should consult case law databases and administrative law reports for decisions that cite the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1995 and this Order, but the Order’s text provides no litigation pointers.

Several practical traps for advisers and operators arise from the Order’s drafting choices and cross‑references:

• Permit dependency without internal detail. Clauses 5, 6 and 7(1) make compliance hinge on a permit “granted and in force under section 29 of the Act,” but the Order does not set out the process, grounds, conditions or timelines for that permit. Advisers must consult section 29 of the parent Act to identify procedural rights, grounds for refusal, conditions that may be imposed and available review or appeal mechanisms. The Order itself offers no administrative detail.

• Cross‑instrument variability for Schedule 3. Schedule 3 does not list products by name but refers to Schedule 7 of the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons “within the meaning of the Agvet Regulations of Tasmania.” That cross‑reference means the set of substances barred from aerial spraying will change if the Agvet Regulations or the Standard are amended. Tracking the live versions of those instruments is essential.

• Broad drafting of aerial Code contraventions. Clause 7(2) criminalises not just performing aerial spraying contrary to the Council’s Code, but also causing or allowing such spraying. That language can bring into scope landowners or managers who engage contractors to aerial spray if they have some role that can be characterised as “allowing” the operation.

• Narrow operational exemption. Clause 8(2) exempts only an inspector authorised by the Chief Veterinary Officer from the ban on using Schedule 4 poisons for vertebrate pest control. That is a narrow pathway to lawful use and does not extend to private operators or other public officers unless separately authorised. The Order does not specify the form or limits of authorisation.

• Seasonal timing requirement for 2,4‑D. Schedule 2 places a recurring annual prohibition on spraying products containing 2,4‑D from 15 September to 15 April. Failure to observe the boundary dates risks a 50‑unit fine. The Order does not state whether partial day timing or time‑of‑day issues matter; those details may be in the parent Act or in permits.

• Fenthion limitation is use‑specific. Schedule 1 lists “a chemical product containing fenthion, when used or to be used for control of birds.” The restriction therefore targets a specific use context rather than an unconditional ban on fenthion; advisers must consider intended use when assessing coverage.

• Penalty unit valuation omitted. The Order sets maximum fines in penalty units but does not state the dollar value of a penalty unit. The applicable monetary amounts therefore require reference to the statute that defines penalty units at the relevant time.

• Undefined entities. The Order refers to “the Council” as the publisher of the aerial spraying Code without defining which council. Practitioners must locate the relevant Council in administrative materials or the parent Act to identify the Code that governs compliance.

• Interpretation as by‑laws. Clause 3(2) applies the Acts Interpretation Act 1931 “as if the order were by‑laws.” That may affect the way ambiguous terms are read; advisers should review how the Acts Interpretation Act treats by‑laws in procedural and remedial contexts.

• Administrative burden and timing risk. The permit requirement creates an administrative step outside the Order’s text; delays, conditions, or refusals in the permit process can prevent otherwise planned uses. The Order provides no transitional provision where a permit is sought after a ban has begun.

These “gotchas” flow directly from the Order’s text and its pattern of dependence on other instruments and administrative actors.

Checklist and practical steps that follow strictly from the Order’s text:

1. Confirm territorial scope. The Order applies to the whole of Tasmania (cl 4). Any spraying activity within Tasmania must be screened against the Order’s prohibitions.

2. Identify the chemical and intended use. Determine whether the chemical product or any constituent appears in Schedule 1, Schedule 3 (via the Schedule 7 cross‑reference) or Schedule 4. For Schedule 1 products, the prohibition applies generally to the listed substances (e.g. 4‑aminopyridine hydrochloride, alpha and beta chloralose, mevinphos, fenthion when for bird control, pindone) (Schedule 1). For Schedule 4 products, the prohibition applies when the spraying is “for the purpose of controlling pests that are vertebrates” (cl 8(1); Schedule 4 lists strychnine, potassium cyanide, sodium cyanide). For Schedule 3, check the current Schedule 7 to the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons as referenced by the Agvet Regulations of Tasmania.

3. Check timing for 2,4‑D. If the product contains 2,4‑D, confirm whether intended spraying falls between 15 September and 15 April inclusive; if it does, a permit under section 29 is required (cl 6; Schedule 2).

4. Assess mode of application. If the intended operation involves aerial spraying, check Schedule 3 and the Council’s Code of Practice. Aerial spraying of Schedule 3 products is prohibited except where covered by a section 29 permit (cl 7(1); Schedule 3). Separate to permitting, cl 7(2) makes compliance with the Code of Practice for Aerial Spraying a statutory duty.

5. Apply for a permit if required. Where the Order conditions lawfulness on “a permit granted and in force under section 29 of the Act” (cl 5, cl 6, cl 7(1)), obtain a section 29 permit before proceeding. The Order does not set permit procedures; consult section 29 and the parent Act for application requirements, timing, conditions, and appeal mechanisms.

6. If using Schedule 4 chemicals for vertebrate pest control, do not proceed unless an inspector authorised by the Chief Veterinary Officer is performing the operation (cl 8(2)). For private operators, identify alternative methods or seek authorisation pathways if available under other laws.

7. Comply with the aerial Code. Identify the Council referenced in cl 7(2), obtain the current Code of Practice for Aerial Spraying in Tasmania, and ensure operations comply. Document adherence to the Code as part of operational records.

8. Keep permit and documentation on site. Where a permit authorises otherwise prohibited spraying, keep evidence that the activity was “conducted in accordance with a permit granted and in force under section 29 of the Act” to produce to inspectors or in enforcement proceedings.

9. Track external instruments. Because Schedule 3 relies on the Agvet Regulations and the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons, maintain current checks on those instruments for changes that alter prohibited aerial substances.

10. Factor penalties into compliance risk. Non‑compliance with cl 5 or cl 6 carries a maximum fine of 50 penalty units; breaches of cl 7 or cl 8 carry a maximum of 100 penalty units (cl 5-8). Locate the current statutory dollar value of a penalty unit in Tasmanian law when calculating financial exposure.

11. Engage appropriate public authorities where necessary. For operations that may involve inspector authorisation or interface with the Chief Veterinary Officer, liaise with those authorities. Administrative responsibility for the Order lies with the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries (Gazette notice).

12. Seek legal or regulatory advice on ambiguous points. Ambiguities include which body is “the Council” for the Code, the criteria and timing of section 29 permits, and the exact composition of Schedule 7 in the Standard. These items are external to the Order and require examination of the parent Act, relevant regulations and departmental administrative materials.

Following these steps tracks the Order’s requirements as written and reduces exposure to the monetary penalties set out in cl 5-8.