Page 2299 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
3
Mr Walsh goes on to say that, 'To apply the published Standard to structures which may not be mechanically ventilated or air conditioned, may be inappropriate. The scope of the document clearly indicates the intention of the Committee: "This Standard sets out requirements for air-handling systems which ventilate enclosures by mechanical means..."'.
Mr Walsh also distances Standards Australia from the comments by Mr West upon which the Committee has placed so much value. According to Mr Walsh, Mr West's comments do not appear to have been made at a Standards Australia organised meeting, seminar or other official gathering.
Given his knowledge of the intention of the Standard during the drafting process, Mr Walsh suggests that the intent of Mr West's statement was that the Standard would deal with health in terms of comfort levels of contaminants for occupants. This is very different from saying it is a health-based standard in the way that we mean 'health' in a medical context.
As the Committee was told by ventilation experts during the public hearings, the Standard is a building design standard intended to achieve comfort for occupants by reducing odour levels.
The New South Wales WorkCover Authority also takes issue with allegations made in the Committee's report. Specifically, in respect of the statement at section 4.12, Mr Peter Harley, WorkCover's Manager of Scientific Services, states that it is inaccurate to report that AS 1668.2 is being used as a key mechanism by WorkCover NSW for controlling exposure to ETS.
Mr Harley also expresses concern with information provided to the Committee by the Liquor Trades Union, cited in section 4.9 of the report. This information is still at an early stage of preparation and has no status as a published document deriving from the WorkCover Authority.
WorkCover states, quite categorically, that it recommends that the most effective manner in which to fulfil the legal obligation to provide a safe and healthy working environment is through the implementation of a no-smoking policy in the workplace.
Where ventilation techniques are used, employers will need to be able to demonstrate that these measures are equal to, or exceed, the level of health and safety provided by a no-smoking policy.
I would also like to quote WorkCover's comment on the use of ventilation and air quality standards:
'Because of the large number of chemicals in environmental tobacco smoke, there is no internationally accepted standard which provides specific guidance on passive smoking. Likewise, Ventilation Codes applying to Australia and other countries focus upon comfort rather than health considerations.'
2299
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .