Page 1297 - Week 04 - Thursday, 8 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
However, the harmonised work health and safety law regulates some aspects of dangerous substances in the workplace such as chemicals and asbestos. While the ACT is yet to adopt these regulations, it intends to do so shortly. As a result, it is currently possible for a person to have overlapping duties under both acts in a workplace setting. The amendment proposed by the government provides certainty to a duty holder in these circumstances and provides that if a person has overlapping duties and they comply with the Work Health and Safety Act in relation to dangerous substances such as chemicals and asbestos, the person is taken to comply with the Dangerous Substances Act and cannot be penalised.
In introducing the new chemical and asbestos regulations in the Work Health and Safety Act, the government proposes to work to ensure there is as little overlap or inconsistency as possible. Therefore this amendment has been developed to provide certainty to duty holders and removes any unintended confusion.
The proposed amendments put forward by Mr Smyth run the risk of creating considerable uncertainty. What the government is doing is saying to duty holders that there is no uncertainty. This amendment by the government puts the issue beyond doubt. There are no ifs or buts about when it may or may not continue to take effect. The amendment puts the issue beyond doubt. If you comply with one law, you comply with the other. End of story. The provision would be repealed when harmonisation is complete, not before.
While I understand members are keen to put an end date to this process—and the government does intend to complete this within 12 months—I do not wish to commit to such a time frame in statute because there may be changes and further discussion required through industry consultation and there may need to be appropriate lead times to allow industry to comply with resulting changes. Therefore, if this harmonisation is not able to occur within 12 months, I do not wish to see a statutory sunset clause in the legislation.
I consider that the government’s approach on this matter is a better one, to ensure that harmonisation is completed properly, ambiguity is removed from the statute book and the process is not rushed due to some arbitrary, statutory time frame. This will allow sufficient time for meaningful industry consultation and also time to enable any necessary transitional provisions to comply with resulting changes. The government does not support the amendments.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo—Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Housing, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and Minister for Ageing) (12.23): Just very briefly, I think that there is an issue here that one can easily take either view on. We have a choice between putting a statutory time frame on it to perhaps squeeze for things to be got on with and the approach that Mr Corbell has argued, that you want a level of flexibility to allow for some industry consultation, some possible variance and implementation time frames.
There are, of course, merits in each of those arguments. I think, on balance, rather than having a drop-dead deadline and we may then have to come back and alter it in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video