Chief Executive
Officer
Mr Rex Hoy
NICNAS Review
Department of Health and Ageing (MDP 71)
GPO Box 9848
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Dear Sir/Madam
Response to Discussion Paper: Review of the National Industrial Chemicals
Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the discussion paper on the review of NICNAS.
Safe Work Australia is an Australian Government statutory agency with the primary
responsibility of improving work health and safety arrangements across Australia. A key role of
Safe Work Australia is the development of model work health and safety (WHS) legislation for
adoption as Commonwealth, state and territory legislation in accordance with the
Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health
and Safety (IGA).
The model WHS legislation provides the basis for a consistent regulatory framework for the
management of hazardous chemicals in workplaces. It places duties on manufacturers and
importers of hazardous chemicals as well as persons conducting a business or undertaking
involved in the supply, storage, handling, use or disposal of hazardous chemicals. The
legislation also provides for restricting or prohibiting use of certain hazardous chemicals.
Safe Work Australia has an interest in the current review of NICNAS due to the linkages
between NICNAS activities and workplace health and safety. For example, NICNAS
assessments may lead to recommendations for legislative changes to be implemented under
WHS laws or provide recommendations to be implemented by duty holders to comply with
WHS legislation. These include:
• hazard classifications
• workplace exposure standards for airborne contaminants (WES)
• health monitoring, and
• prohibition or restrictions of workplace hazardous chemicals.
Safe Work Australia is supportive of any reforms resulting in improvements to health and
safety outcomes in Australian workplaces that handle and use chemicals. Comments on the
options identified in the discussion paper are at Attachment A.
Yours faithfully
Rex Hoy
Chief Executive Officer
Safe Work Australia
July 2012
220 Northbourne Avenue, Braddon ACT 2612
GPO Box 641, Canberra ACT 2601
[email protected]
www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au
Discussion Paper: Review of the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme
(NICNAS), June 2012
Making a submission
Submissions must be received by the Department of Health and Ageing by
5pm, Friday 27 July 2012
Please use this form to make your submission in response to the discussion paper. You may delete any
sections that you do not wish to comment on.
While submissions may be lodged electronically or by post, electronic lodgment by email is preferred.
For accessibility reasons, please email responses in a Word or RTF format not as a .pdf.
Email:
[email protected]
Mail: NICNAS Review
Department of Health and Ageing (MDP 71)
GPO Box 9848
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Organisation or
Individual:
Principal contact:
Position:
Phone:
Mobile:
Email address:
Safe Work Australia
Martin Merrett
Director, Technical Review and Assessment Section
02 6240 3759
Fax:
[email protected]
Street address:
Suburb/City:
Postal address:
Suburb/City:
State:
GPO Box 641
Canberra
State:
P’code:
ACT
P’code: 2601
Please note:
•
•
•
•
•
For submissions made by individuals, all personal details other than your name and the state or
territory in which you reside will be removed from your submission before it is published on the
Department of Health and Ageing website.
Copyright in submissions resides with the author(s), not with the Australian Government.
Submissions, or parts thereof, that are intended to remain confidential should be clearly marked as
such and justifications provided. Submitters should be aware that confidential submissions may still
be subject to access under freedom of information law.
Submissions will be made public and shared with relevant Commonwealth agencies and any
consultants engaged to assist with the review.
Submissions will remain on our website as public documents indefinitely.
Confidentiality
Please indicate if your submission:
X
contains no material supplied in confidence
contains in confidence material which is clearly marked as such
Summary
Please provide a short summary, up to half a page, outlining the key points of your submission:
Safe Work Australia supports the aims of this reform activity as a number of the reform options are
expected to assist in improving health and safety outcomes in Australian workplaces. Any changes to
NICNAS powers and functions should take account of and complement existing legislation, for example
the harmonised work health and safety (WHS) legislation where it has been implemented in the
Commonwealth, states and territories.
Risk management decisions made by NICNAS that are intended for adoption under other legislation, for
example recommendations to prohibit or restrict a hazardous chemical under the harmonised WHS
legislation, should include an assessment of costs and benefits to support the recommendation for
regulatory change in accordance with Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and Office of Best
Practice Regulation (OBPR) guidelines.
Part 4 – The regulatory framework for industrial chemicals (options A1 – A3)
•
•
•
Do you think that an industrial chemicals risk assessment and risk management manual would assist?
If not, why not?
If so, what are the specific matters that could usefully be addressed in the manual?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the options?
Please keep your responses to each option no more than one page:
A1
Safe Work Australia supports option A1 to develop a risk assessment and management manual to provide
clarity to stakeholders on the basis of risk management decisions taken by NICNAS. The manual should
clearly articulate the scope and limitations of risk management decisions taken and clearly identify that
other legislation can and will apply in certain situations. References to WHS legislation, Codes of
Practice and guidance materials should be included where appropriate.
A2
Establishment of a cross-portfolio group to consider chemical policy is supported in principle and should
be considered in a whole of government context taking account of the role of existing groups like the
Standing Committee on Chemicals. The effectiveness of this group, particularly if lead by one of the
chemical policy agencies is likely to be limited in its ability to influence policy changes in other
portfolios. Any cross portfolio group established will need to have clearly defined roles and expected
outcomes.
A3
This option is supported to clarify roles and responsibilities of the various chemicals policy and
regulatory agencies following any changes to NICNAS powers and responsibilities as a result of this
review.
Part 5 – New industrial chemicals (options B1-B6)
•
•
•
•
•
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the options for addressing the problems and objectives
identified?
If weaknesses are identified in relation to any of the options, are there other options that also meet the
objectives?
If these options were to be adopted, what are some of the implementation issues that would require
consideration?
What would be the likely impact on your organisation, if this approach were adopted?
If NICNAS were able to refuse both an assessment certificate (Option B4) or listing on AICS
(Option B5), under what circumstances would this be appropriate?
Please keep your responses to each option to no more than one page:
B4
Risk management decisions made by NICNAS relating to Safe Work Australia’s activities have included
recommendations for prohibition or restriction that are intended for implementation in jurisdictional WHS
legislation through national instruments maintained by Safe Work Australia and its predecessors. This has
been an inefficient and slow process due to the need for Safe Work Australia to undertake a regulation
impact assessment (RIS) to meet COAG and OBPR requirements. Some NICNAS assessment reports
have recommended establishment of or amendment to a workplace exposure standard, changes to health
monitoring requirements or prohibition or restriction of use of a workplace chemical. These have all
required the Agency to prepare a RIS.
Amendments to work health and safety legislative instruments through Safe Work Australia’s processes
involve tripartite decision making arrangements these changes are not necessarily a formality.
Amending NICNAS powers to provide the ability to impose conditions on use like prohibition or
restriction of a chemical is supported. Implementation of this option would be expected to provide a more
responsive regulatory system able to address worker, public and environmental safety concerns more
quickly than present. It would also provide a simple and consistent mechanism for implementing risk
management options across the work health and safety, public health and environment sectors with a
single regulatory instrument.
B5
Safe Work Australia’s preference would be to have the conditions of use of chemicals subject to a
certificate of assessment and included in the Australian Inventory of Industrial Chemicals (AICS) rather
that not including the chemical on AICS. This will allow transparency for other chemical regulators as to
what chemicals are and are not permitted to the used in Australia. It would also appear to be more
consistent with the proposal to refuse to list those chemicals on AICS where an assessment indicates that
the risks from the chemical cannot be managed to an appropriate level.
Part 6 – Existing industrial chemicals (options C1-C6)
•
•
•
Do these options address the problems identified in relation to existing chemicals? If not, why not?
What are the implementation implications?
If these options were (or were not) to be adopted, how would this impact on your organisation?
Please keep your responses to each option to no more than one page:
C3 and C5
The proposal to remove chemicals no longer used in Australia from AICS is supported. We see this as an
important option as it would provide a more realistic picture of chemical usage in Australia. It also will
assist in review activities currently being progressed by Safe Work Australia. Increasing the information
gathering powers of NICNAS to achieve this and to maintain AICS is also supported.
Part 7 – Post market monitoring and enforcement (Options D1-D3)
•
•
•
•
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the options?
Does an adverse effects reporting system address the problems and objectives identified?
What would be the impact of an adverse effects reporting system on introducers?
Are there other ways in which NICNAS’ post-market monitoring and enforcement capacity could be
improved?
Please keep your responses to each option to no more than one page:
Part 8 – Other reforms – release of information and confidential commercial information (Options
E1-E2)
•
•
•
•
How would the release of information to other relevant government agencies impact introducers?
What are some of the implementation issues that would require consideration?
What would be the impact of these options?
Are there any other ways in which the identified problems can be addressed?
Please keep your responses to each option to no more than one page:
E1 and E2
The release of information on chemical hazards and risks to other agencies is important to ensure the
effectiveness of the overall chemicals regulatory framework in Australia and is supported. It would allow
other agencies to take appropriate regulatory action where necessary and address potential public, worker
or environmental safety concerns in a more responsive manner.
Any confidentiality provisions in the NICNAS system must be consistent with confidentiality
arrangements under other legislation. For example, under WHS legislation manufacturers and importers
of hazardous chemicals have a duty to disclose information on a chemical’s identity, proportions and
hazards on labels and safety data sheets, in order for that chemical to be stored, handled, used or disposed
of safely in workplaces.
Part 8 – Other reforms – use of foreign schemes / international assessments (Options F1-F2)
•
•
•
Do these options strike an appropriate balance between the use of international
assessments/harmonisation and the need to ensure that Australia retains the capacity to undertake
Australian relevant risk assessment and management where necessary?
If these options were to be adopted, what are the implications?
If these options were (or were not) adopted, how would this impact on your organisation?
Please keep your responses to each option to no more than one page:
Part 8 – Other reforms – chemicals in articles (Options G1-G2)
•
Do these options address the problems relating to articles?
Please keep your responses to this option to no more than one page:
Part 8 – Other reforms – chemicals in cosmetics (Option H1-H2)
•
If these options were (or were not) to be adopted, how would this impact on your organisation?
Please keep your responses to this option to no more than one page:
Part 8 – Other reforms – Import and export of chemicals under the Stockholm and Rotterdam
Conventions (Option I1-I2)
•
What are the implications of maintaining the status quo?
Please keep your responses to this option to no more than one page:
Part 8 – Other reforms – Governance – Committees (Option J1)
•
•
If the options in this Discussion Paper are preferred, what does this mean for the governance
committees of NICNAS?
What committees are needed? For example, would it be useful to have a strategic advisory committee
advising the Director of NICNAS?
Please keep your responses to this option to no more than one page:
Part 8 – Other reforms – Governance – Relationship with the Department of Health and Ageing
(DoHA) (Option K1)
Please keep your responses to this option to no more than one page: