Page 595 - Week 02 - Thursday, 22 February 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Australia, and I understand it has been done over a considerable amount of time with considerable input from stakeholders and all jurisdictions.
The bill today essentially establishes the framework for the adoption of the model regulation on hazardous chemicals and hazardous facilities. More detailed regulations will follow in an amending regulation. I recall that in 2011 there was some concern that the adoption of the national code on hazardous chemicals could erode our local laws, particularly around the issue of asbestos. Members will know of course that asbestos has been a contentious issue here in the territory. There has now been evidence over several years from other jurisdictions that have adopted the model code already which has allayed these fears as the regulations appear to be working well. We have already adopted the asbestos regulations.
The legislation makes several main changes which I will not go into in detail as there is plenty of information on this elsewhere presented by another minister. The bill will require labelling and packaging of hazardous chemicals using the harmonised United Nations classification system known as the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, or GHS. I think this is a sensible move as the GHS is an internationally accepted standard, and clarity and uniformity in the handling of dangerous substances can only be a good thing.
The amendments alter the requirement to register with the regulator in relation to the storage and handling of dangerous goods. Previously businesses that kept a placard quantity level of hazardous chemicals had to register with the regulator, that is, WorkSafe ACT. Under this new model law only businesses keeping more than manifest quantities of chemicals will need to register. Essentially that means a reduced requirement to register with the regulator and it is done to reduce red tape and allow the regulator to better allocate its resources.
I do not believe that this is a reduction in safety, rather a better targeting of regulation where it is needed. For example, at the same time that some businesses will no longer need to register with the regulator they will also be subject to additional safety requirements that previously only applied to businesses that were registered. An example is that they will now need to install and maintain fire protection systems designed to handle the type and quality of chemicals present at the workplace. These placard-level businesses also have to comply with various safety measures such as keeping a register of all hazardous chemicals stored or handled at the workplace and maintaining safety datasheets for all the hazardous chemicals. Through the model code there are also additional controls placed on businesses that have a manifest level of chemicals, for example, they need to consult with emergency services on their emergency plans.
Speaking of emergencies, members will recall that in 2011 there was a serious chemical fire in Mitchell. The business where the fire occurred stored a large volume of PCBs, otherwise known as polychlorinated biphenyls. PCBs are what are known as persistent organic pollutants, and the Greens have always held concern about how they are controlled and regulated, particularly when they are used or stored close to residents or where they can escape into the natural environment. Members probably recall that the report following the Mitchell fire raised concerns that the government
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video