Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 12 February 2004) . . Page.. 337 ..

the legislation controlling access to explosives and other dangerous substances. Given the high concentration of embassies and national institutions in the ACT, we must have effective legislative controls over dangerous substances, including explosives. As the Assembly is aware, we do not have these effective controls at the moment.

The Standing Committee on Legal Affairs reviewed the operation of the Dangerous Goods Act in 2002, recommending that the act be completely rewritten. The report states that the Dangerous Goods Act:

…is an outdated and poorly worded piece of legislation with internal inconsistencies that create an unclear framework and imprecise definitions…It has a focus on prosecution rather than assistance to meet legal obligations through a compliance framework.…the whole Act needs an overhaul to bring [it] up to contemporary standards and to reflect modern technology.

The legislation we are considering today delivers on the government’s promise to introduce new legislation that addresses the problems identified by the standing committee. The bill before us is clearly structured. It contains safety duties, strong licensing and registration controls and a range of enforcement mechanisms that will promote voluntary compliance as well as allowing effective prosecutions where prosecutions are warranted. The bill also gives police and dangerous goods inspectors effective enforcement powers that ensure that public safety considerations are paramount while still protecting the rights of individuals.

This legislation is a first in Australia as it introduces an integrated framework for the regulation of both dangerous goods and hazardous substances. This approach has already been taken in New Zealand and is the approach recommended by both the United Nations and the Australian National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. This is another example of the ACT leading the way on health and safety legislative reform. That is not to say that the contents of the bill are unusual or controversial.

The legislation implements nationally agreed standards on both dangerous goods and hazardous substances. These standards are not only agreed by all governments but also endorsed by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions through their representatives on the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. These standards represent the outcome of many years of negotiations between representatives of governments, industry and unions. The Standing Committee on Legal Affairs examined these standards during its inquiry into the Dangerous Goods Act and recommended that new legislation should incorporate these national safety standards.

The government consulted with the ACT’s Occupational Health and Safety Council during development of the legislation and directly with affected employers, met with employers who use blasting explosives, with fireworks operators and with people who use explosives for theatrical displays and has provided briefings to MLAs and their advisers, the New South Wales and Victorian governments and other interested organisations. The feedback on the bill has been positive. Most people think that we have got it right and agree that the bill will allow the government to control and monitor the public safety aspects of dangerous substances while still allowing businesses which deal with dangerous substances to operate effectively.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .