Home > About us > Our Organisation > Divisions > Office of Health Protection (OHP) > Office of Chemical Safety

Office of Chemical Safety

Submissions to the 2012 Review of the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme - Amway of Australia

The Discussion Paper: Review of the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS)–June 2012 was released on 1 June 2012. Submissions were received betweeen 1 June and 27 July 2012. The comments received from this consultation process will be used to inform the government of stakeholder views.

PDF printable version of Amway of Australia submission (PDF 75 KB)

Amway of Australia
Ian Gamble
Technical Regulatory manager
02 9843 2215

46 Carrington Rd
Castle Hill NSW 2154

PO Box 202
Castle Hill NSW 2154

Summary

Amway of Australia is a member of Accord Australasia. We strongly support the views of Accord on NICNAS reform in relation to this Discussion Paper.

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?

It is unlikely that a manual would assist. Our main concern is with NICNAS processes and involvement in cosmetics regulation, not a lack of understanding of the NICNAS process. We suggest that NICNAS reform should include adoption of recommendations from the Productivity Commission report.

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?

We do not support NICNAS annotations that impose conditions of use. There are existing regulatory systems for imposing conditions of use for specific uses (e.g. SUSMP for consumer products). It would be wasteful of government resources to have NICNAS imposing conditions. NICNAS should only evaluate safety of new chemicals and other regulators should determine how this should be applied to specific types of products.Top of page

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?

ACCC already have a mandatory reporting system for adverse effects of cosmetics, and are best placed to handle this under consumer law. Reporting to NICNAS would be duplication of effort and expense without any additional benefit.

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?

Much more use should be made of international assessments. It could be argued that the level of acceptable risk and environmental factors may be different in Australia compared to some other countries. However, regulators in our major trading partner countries have very similar chemical assessment objectives and outcomes, and this should be taken into account when considering international assessments. NICNAS evaluation is a slow and costly process. Slowing down or blocking introduction of newer and less hazardous chemicals because of slow and costly NICNAS evaluations can have negative impacts on Australia’s residents and environment.

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?

We support option H1 for regulating of cosmetics by the ACCC, who are better equipped to handle consumer product issues under consumer law than NICNAS. We do not support H2, updating the INCA Act specifically to deal with chemicals in cosmetics.Top of page

A full list of all 2012 submissions can be viewed at June 2012 submissions to the review of NICNAS.