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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2005 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 17 February 2005) . . Page.. 645 ..

(2) No. There are no major hazard facilities in the ACT as defined in the NOHSC Control of Major Hazard Facilities National Standard.

(3) All jurisdictions, including the ACT, have agreed to adopt the national standard as the basis for regulations. The OHS Commissioner released guidance material in October 2000 entitled Guidance on the Control of Major Hazard Facilities in the ACT. NOHSC recognises that as there are no major hazard facilities in the ACT at present, the implementation of the national standard is not immediately relevant to the ACT.

In 2004, the ACT enacted the Dangerous Substances Act 2004 which will allow for future development of major hazard facility regulations consistent with the national standard. The Dangerous Substances (General) Regulation 2004 (SL2004-56) was notified on 15 December 2004 and comes into effect on 31 March 2005. Part 2.8 deals with premises where there is a manifest quantity of dangerous substances present (or likely to be present). Section 275 provides that a person in control of such a premises must ensure that an emergency plan is made and a copy is provided to neighboring premises. Section 267 provides that persons in control must also ensure that neighboring premises are given instructions about the operation of the emergency plan and any procedures and equipment that may be needed for use if there is a dangerous occurrence.

Compensation—stress leave claims
(Question No 20)

Mr Pratt asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 7 December 2004:

(1) Given recent advice by the Federal Government’s workers compensation agency that it expected stress claims in the public service to rise dramatically this financial year (ABC Online, 11 November 2004), are there any similar concerns about stress claims in the A.C.T. from A.C.T. Workcover’s perspective;

(2) If so, (a) is there any estimated bill and (b) why is it assumed stress claims will rise;

(3) Have any stress claims been lodged to date this financial year; if so, how many.

Mr Corbell: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

In the ACT, there are two separate workers compensation jurisdictions.

ACT private sector workers are covered by the Workers Compensation Act 1951, which is administered by ACT WorkCover.

ACT public sector workers are covered by the Comcare scheme (the Federal Government’s workers compensation agency), which was the subject of the ABC Online article referred to in the Member’s question.

Private sector

(1) In the ACT private sector, claims for psychological injury are declining, so there are not similar concerns about stress claims from ACT WorkCover’s perspective at this time.

(2) Not applicable.

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