� ensuring that there is continued focus on managing ongoing risks of working with lower silica engineered stone to avoid complacency amongst PCBUs .
Some submissions also provided feedback on the structure of the proposed licensing framework for lower silica stone , including that there should be :
� a publicly available database of licence holders , and
� a prohibition on consumers purchasing products from unlicensed PCBUs ( i . e . unlicensed suppliers , fabricators and installers ).
Some groups indicated that , should WHS ministers not agree to a complete prohibition of engineered stone , any work with lower silica stone must involve a licensing scheme . For example , the ACTU are strongly in favour of a prohibition of all engineered stone . In the case that this does not occur , the ACTU have proposed any use of lower silica engineered stone should be accompanied by a tripartite licensing regime for importers , suppliers and fabricators of engineered stone with significant penalties for noncompliance . They also suggested a ‘ fit and proper ’ person test that considers general WHS compliance history of the PCBU .
Some submissions argued that a licensing scheme was not required : � licensing offers no additional benefit to workers than the further regulation ( Option 5a ) already agreed by WHS ministers , and
� the additional cost of a licence scheme will be a further burden to PCBUs . 5.4.5 A licensing framework for work with legacy engineered stone
The consultation paper outlined a licensing scheme for exempt uses of engineered stone already installed ( licensing framework for work with legacy products ), that applies to each of the prohibition options . Several peak health bodies supported basing the licensing framework for work with legacy products on asbestos licensing in the model WHS Regulations , whereas industry groups raised concerns about doing so as engineered stone presents a fundamentally different risk profile to that of asbestos . Other submissions highlighted that some processes currently proposed to be covered by such a framework are low risk ( e . g ., minor repair and modification ) and commented that regulation should be commensurate with risk . Licensing lower-risk activities may result in over regulation and present an unnecessary burden on both PCBUs and regulators .
Submissions suggest that a licensing framework for work with legacy products should : � not unintentionally capture businesses that undertake minor and infrequent work
� be risk based – i . e . focus on higher-risk activities , and have exceptions for very minor tasks or occasional work that is unlikely to lead to significant RCS exposure , and
� not impose stricter requirements than work with non-friable asbestos .
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry , the Housing Industry Association and others suggested exemptions from licensing should be included for trades performing low duration and low exposure activities . Specifically , they proposed that a PCBU would require a licence to undertake ( otherwise prohibited ) work with engineered stone already installed , unless :
� the work does not exceed 10 minutes in total per day , and
� the total time the exempt work is performed by an individual worker in any period of 7 days does not exceed one hour .
DECISION REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT Prohibition on the use of engineered stone Page 54 of 107