Updating the GHS under the model
WHS laws—Consultation Summary
August 2019
This summary provides feedback from face-to-face and online consultation about the proposal toupdate the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) underthe model Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws.
Thank you to our stakeholders who participated in the consultation sessions and/or provided awritten submission to the online consultation. Your input is highly valued and will inform a proposal
to Safe Work Australia Members on amendments to the model WHS laws in late 2019.

Consultation process
In June 2019, Safe Work Australia held face-to-face consultation sessions in Sydney, Melbourneand Perth to discuss the proposal to adopt the 7th revised edition of the GHS (GHS Revision 7).
These sessions were attended by chemical manufacturers, importers, suppliers, chemicals
consultants, peak industry bodies and WHS regulators.
Online public consultation was held from 3 to 28 July 2019. Over the four-week consultation period,
Safe Work Australia received 24 submissions from a range of stakeholders, including users ofhazardous chemicals, manufacturers, suppliers, peak industry associations and government
agencies.
The purpose of the consultation was to:educate stakeholders about the changes between GHS Revision 3 and GHS Revision 7
understand how classifications, labels and safety data sheets (SDS) for some chemicals
products may be impacted by the proposed changes
seek feedback on optimal transitional arrangements, andseek feedback on consequential amendments to the model WHS Regulations to support theimplementation of GHS Revision 7.

Adoption of GHS Revision 7
All respondents to the online consultation and face-to-face sessions support Australia moving fromGHS Revision 3 to GHS Revision 7. Stakeholders said they want a co-ordinated and consistentrollout of the new arrangements across Australian states and territories.
Businesses recognise there will be costs to update classifications, labels and SDS for somechemicals products to reflect new requirements under GHS Revision 7. However, industry also
recognises the long-term benefits that will be realised by Australia maintaining alignment with other
GHS countries, including reduced costs for chemical imports. One industry association noted that asAustralia accounts for a very small percentage of world production of hazardous chemicals, it isimportant that local regulatory requirements are consistent with those of our major trading partners.

Consultation Summary | Updating the GHS under the model WHS laws

Page 1 of 4

Transitioning to GHS Revision 7
Moving from GHS Revision 3 to GHS Revision 7 means there will need to be transition
arrangements in place so that duty holders have time to update classifications, labels and SDS forsome products.
Transitional arrangements are the primary concern for industry. Being a small player in the global
market, stakeholders emphasise that Australia must align with international adoption to minimise
cost to businesses. There is a strong feeling that the timing and process for our transition will
determine the success of our adoption.

Transition models
One option is to mirror the arrangements that applied during the initial transition to the GHS, which
would apply to manufacturers/importers only, with no changes required to existing products alreadyin the supply chain or for end users.
An alternative model proposed that GHS Revision 7 requirements would only apply to new products
or where significant changes have been made to classifications, with labels and SDS for existingproducts not subject to significant changes being acceptable (regardless of which GHS is used) until
the end of the usual 5-year review cycle for the SDS.
Acknowledging that both options provide flexibility and a pragmatic approach, stakeholders wereequally supportive of these two models.
A third option proposed by a peak industry body suggests a ‘mutually accepted approach’ whereby
businesses can operate under multiple versions of the GHS at the same time. Under thisarrangement, all existing GHS editions could be recognised under WHS laws, with older editions
being phased out over a set period of time (e.g. 5 years). It is suggested this approach would allow
Australia to better respond in terms of GHS decisions made globally, without locking the Australian
GHS implementation into a set time-frame. For example, if the United States moves toGHS Revision 8, then Australia could also implement GHS Revision 8 while continuing to recogniseolder revisions such as GHS Revision 3 and GHS Revision 7.

Duration and timing of the transition
There is a strong view that sufficient time must be given to allow industry time to identify, analyseand implement all of the relevant changes.
Stakeholders highlighted the need to think about timing the transition to GHS Revision 7 in thecontext of the existing requirement to review SDS every five years. For example, if a two-year
transitional period begins from mid-2020 (to align with the end of the European Union’s (EU)transition), then the five-year review cycle for SDS is likely to fall within a two-year transitional period
anyway, as many SDS were updated to meet GHS requirements in mid to late 2016.
Most stakeholders prefer a minimum two-year transitional period, with some respondents stating a
12-month transition would also be acceptable. A stakeholder in the SDS software sector
commented they are ready for Australia to implement a rolling transition, with each new edition of
the GHS adopted by reference immediately upon its publication.
The gases sector sees the ideal transitional period extending to five years. The gas industry noted it
faces unique challenges with the GHS, due to the large range of standard and specialty gas
mixtures, the large fleet of re-usable gas cylinders and cylinders not returning to the supplier forseveral years. This makes it difficult and costly to relabel the cylinder fleet within a definedtimeframe.
In terms of timing for commencement of the transition, there is a strong preference to begin before
October 2020 to ensure that GHS Revision 7 labelled products coming from the EU are accepted inAustralia. One industry association commented that the EU is the world's largest manufacturer forConsultation Summary | Updating the GHS under the model WHS laws

Page 2 of 4

aerosols, highlighting the importance of EU compliant products being able to be imported into
Australia without requiring costly re-labelling.
One respondent commented that the adoption of GHS Revision 7 in Asia is a key consideration interms of timing, as many of Australia’s products are supplied from Asia and inconsistent GHS
requirements will lead to increased labelling costs for businesses.

Minimising impacts down the supply chain
Another key message from industry is the need to ensure that suppliers and end users are notaffected by the move to GHS Revision 7. Industry wants to ensure products, which aremanufactured or imported before the transitional period ends, are able to be supplied without
needing to meet GHS Revision 7 requirements. In practice, this means existing labels are still
acceptable for suppliers and end users until local stock runs out.
In contrast, a WHS regulator commented that transitional arrangements which exempt existing stock
creates enforcement problems for regulators, because it is difficult for a regulator to determine whena product is supplied or received in the supply chain. It was suggested that the transitionalarrangements should not cause administrative or enforcement difficulties for regulators.

Precautionary statements
Stakeholders see updated precautionary statements (which appear on product labels and SDS) asone of the most significant changes in moving to GHS Revision 7.
Industry supports flexibility in the use of precautionary statements, if the intent and safety message
to the end user remains the same.

Consequential amendments to the model WHS laws
Since the introduction of the model WHS laws, Safe Work Australia has received feedback thatsome minor inconsistencies in Australia’s adoption of the GHS creates additional costs for business.

Sub-Category 2B Eye Irritants
An issue raised during the implementation of the GHS in Australia has been the treatment of subcategory 2B eye irritants under the definition of ‘hazardous chemical’.
The intention of excluding sub-category 2B under the definition of a ‘hazardous chemical’ is that
sub-categorisation of category 2 eye irritants was not required, as Category 2A (which is adopted)
encompasses the entire eye irritation spectrum (i.e. it includes sub-category 2B by definition). While
the GHS criteria make this clear, the definition, when read in isolation, does not.
Some members of the industry noted that the current practice is to deem a product that is onlyclassified as sub-category 2B to be non-hazardous. They consider that the current wording of thedefinition is misleading and implies this approach is correct.
While noting this would necessitate a change to current industry practice, stakeholders weresupportive of removing this confusion and ensuring GHS Revision 7 implementation is consistentacross hazard categories. This would mean that Category 2 eye irritation would be included under
the definition of ‘hazardous chemical’ under the model WHS laws, with sub-categorisation into
Category 2A/2B being optional where data is available.

Ingredient Proportions on LabelsAnother issue flagged during consultation is the unique Australian requirement for the label of ahazardous chemical to disclose the identity and proportion of each ingredient in accordance withSchedule 8 of the model WHS Regulations. Previous feedback from industry indicated thisrequirement led to increased costs to businesses, as other economies such as the EU and UnitedStates do not require this information on a label.

Consultation Summary | Updating the GHS under the model WHS laws

Page 3 of 4

We canvassed views on whether stakeholders would be supportive of removing this labelling
requirement from the model WHS Regulations. Stakeholders were overwhelmingly in favour ofamending the model WHS laws to remove this requirement, stating it is a requirement unique toAustralia that increases compliance costs and does not improve overall product safety as thisinformation is already available in the product’s SDS.
Stakeholders told us that removing this requirement will provide more space on a label to increase
text or pictogram size to convey the critical GHS hazard communication elements. The gases sector
noted there is very limited space available on a gas cylinder label, and removing this requirement
would reduce content overcrowding without impacting user safety.
One large national user of chemicals highlighted it is more important that the label include correct
safety and usage instructions, rather than ingredient proportions, and that the SDS is the mostappropriate source of this more detailed information.
In contrast, a WHS regulator did not support the removal of ingredient proportions from labels,considering the overall safety benefits of ingredient information warrants its retention.

Guidance/supporting material
Stakeholders would like guides, fact sheets, online tools and face-to-face training to help
communicate new GHS requirements and assist stakeholders navigate the transition toGHS Revision 7.
They also suggest specific and targeted training for the gases and aerosols industries may be
useful, as the major changes in GHS Revision 7 are in those areas.

Next steps
The feedback received from the consultation process will inform a proposal to Safe Work Australia
Members at the end of 2019 on amending the model WHS laws to adopt GHS Revision 7.
Safe Work Australia Members will consider transition arrangements and any other consequential
amendments to the model WHS laws to support implementation.
To stay informed, please subscribe to the hazardous chemicals mailing list.

Consultation Summary | Updating the GHS under the model WHS laws

Page 4 of 4