Ms WORTH (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) (5:41 PM) —in reply—I thank all those who have contributed to this debate on the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2003. I thank the opposition, the shadow minister and the member for Blaxland for their support. I am disappointed that the member for Calare along with the member for Cunningham have found fault. Perhaps it might be appropriate to deal with some of the points that they have raised.

Firstly, turning to the member for the Calare, I am sorry that he has implied that there is an inadequate regulatory body. We have a very strong regulatory body. I am pleased with the way NICNAS discharges its responsibilities, and I would like that placed on the record. I turn to other points that the member for Calare raised in relation to the CEC permit changes, claiming that they were unacceptable because it will simply double the volume of unassessed dangerous chemicals being exposed to the public and released into the environment. In fact, the proposed suite of changes to the CEC permit will increase health and safety and environmental protection. The CEC permit system is subject to strict conditions set by the regulator, including what end-uses can occur and conditions set on disposal and release. Further, CEC permit chemicals are not allowed to be used in end-use consumer products—finished domestic products, such as cleaners and cosmetics. Customer agreements must be in place for each permit, whereby the regulator is informed of the customer's workplace.

Rather than opening the floodgates, NICNAS estimates that only an additional 20 chemicals per year may come under the revised CEC. All workers using a CEC permit chemical must be informed of the permit conditions set by the regulator. Further, the proposed changes of moving the maximum volume for a permit from two tonnes to four tonnes will occur in conjunction with increases in data requirements on health and environment effect, which are currently not required. Only a brief statement on the hazard status is currently required. The regulations will be changed to require a summary of all health and environmental safety data on the chemical, data which will be made publicly available. The changes will also strengthen the audit and record-keeping requirements, whereby any adverse effect must be reported to NICNAS, which will make these findings publicly available.

The member for Calare and the member for Cunningham shared concerns about consultation and the fact that the environmental movement was not consulted. Neither industry nor non-government organisations were individually consulted, given the vast range of interested parties, but extensive time was provided for consideration of the changes to the CEC. The industrial chemicals regulator, NICNAS, made a series of articles, discussion papers and draft proposals widely available. This was done using the common consultative practices of placing notices in the press and in the Chemical Gazette, as well as publicising proposed changes on the NICNAS web site, in their newsletter and in the NICNAS 2001-02 annual report.

A number of individuals representing what might be called the green movement are on NICNAS's direct mailing list for publications, including its annual report and newsletter. The member for Cunningham raised the issue that in the RIS the volume range that industry flagged as required for commercial evaluation was 25 kilograms to 1,000 kilograms. This was a printing error. It should be 25 kilograms to 10,000 kilograms, as was correctly reported and as the industry had sought. One nought was missing in one of the areas where that figure was published. NICNAS further undertook its own analysis and determined that four tonnes would suit most industry needs.

The member for Cunningham also raised the issue of a survey that was commissioned by NICNAS. The consulting company, SHE Pacific, was originally commissioned but did not complete its work due to a change of management in the company. Following that, NICNAS undertook the survey itself using a staff project officer. I make those points just for the information of the member for Calare and the member for Cunningham.

I remind members that this bill makes a number of changes to the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 in relation to commercial evaluation permits and company registration provisions. The bill seeks, firstly, to increase the amount of industrial chemicals that a company may introduce under the commercial evaluation permit system from two tonnes to four tonnes. The commercial evaluation permit allows companies to introduce chemicals at a controlled volume and time for market testing. Secondly, the bill aligns the deadline for the renewal of company registration with the expiry date of registration, that date being 31 August each year. Currently the renewal date is 1 August, one month before the start of the registration year on 1 September. This is a deviation from common practice for licences and registrations, where renewals are not required before the expiry date. The alignment will bring company registrations into line with the norm.

The bill also specifies 31 August as the deadline for a registered company to notify the Director of the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme, which we call NICNAS, that the company will not be renewing its registration in the next registration year. Currently no deadline is specified for such notifications. When a company does not renew its registration by the renewal deadline, NICNAS cannot tell whether the renewal is late or is a registration that is no longer required.

The bill will abolish the urgent handling fee and establish a late renewal penalty for renewals of company registrations received after the renewal deadline. If a company has not renewed its registration for the following year by 31 August, the company's registration lapses until the application fee, the registration charge and the late renewal penalty have been paid, whereupon the registration is deemed to have been reinstated from the beginning of the registration year.

The bill also transfers company registration fees and charges from the act to the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Regulations 1990 to allow greater flexibility in adjusting fees to fully recover the cost of administering and implementing the act and regulations. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to support the above measures and in particular to ensure the provision for a late renewal penalty is viable. If a company is registered one year and seeks registration in the following year, the registration in the following year is treated as a renewal and attracts a penalty if it is late, rather than being treated as a registration and avoiding the late renewal penalty. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.