NANOMATERIALS REGULATION

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:46): I move:

That this house, whilst acknowledging the possible potential benefits of using nanomaterials, urges the state and federal governments to develop a comprehensive and effective regulating regime to oversee research, implementation and labelling of nanomaterials.

We are talking here about nanomaterials, and they are very small indeed—even smaller than the grey matter that I possess. To give members an idea of what we are talking about, we are talking about dimensions of 10^-9 which is pretty small. Things do not come much smaller than nanomaterials, which represent a nanometre or one-millionth of a millimetre across. By comparison, a human hair (for those of us who have still a few) has a diameter of 80,000 nanometres.

Mr Venning: Are you reflecting on my head?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: No, I think the reflection was coming off the wall. When we are talking about nanoparticles, we are talking about things that are very, very small. They occur in nature and, in fact, if you manipulate the molecules, you change the object because, at the end of the day, it is the arrangement of the molecular structure that determines whether you have got a brick or a piece of wood.

People might ask: why is this significant? It is because nanoparticles are increasingly being used in all sorts of things, such as being put into food and into cosmetics—although I do not use a lot of cosmetics because I was born naturally beautiful. There are about 800 items—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Did someone move to get that struck from the record? That is very unfair. I do use aftershave balm, and I think you can tell how supple my skin is.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think we need to talk about the way he smells. Please carry on.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: These nanoparticles are now in 800 everyday items. Members here might actually be surprised that they are actually consuming these things and the concern, and I will elaborate on this in a moment, is that there is not adequate regulation or even labelling in relation to the use of these things. Where are they? They are in things like building materials, cosmetics, sunscreens and, increasingly, in a whole range of other products. We do not know the long-term consequences of materials that small. Our body's organs are not used to dealing with particles that small.

One of the cosmetic companies, L'Oréal, has some patents in relation to additives to cosmetics. We don't know the long-term consequences, and we do not know even the short-term consequences of people ingesting some of this material. In fact, Dr Maxine McCall from the CSIRO says, 'Researchers do not yet know how to detect and trace nanoparticles in the human body or in the environment.' Yet, people are consuming them, putting them on their skin, and eating them. An ice-cream is being developed—I do not know whether it is on the market at the moment—using a food additive based on nanomaterials which will be low in fat but which will have the same texture and flavour as full fat ice cream. I am not anti nanotechnology and I am not anti the use of nanomaterials. What I am concerned about is that we lack, in my view, an adequate structure and organisations to oversee what is happening.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration, which is responsible for drug oversight in Australia, is the main body looking at nanotechnology and health. Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and the National Industrial Chemicals Notification Assessment Scheme all have an active interest. Supposedly, these bodies are coordinated through an intergovernmental body known as the Health, Safety and Environment Working Group. From a consumer product point of view, the key regulatory agency is the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. That all sounds fine, but I do not believe that any of those agencies are currently monitoring, regulating or ensuring labelling of a level which would satisfy the concerns that many experts in the field have indicated.

According to research by Craig Cormick, who is the Manager of Public Awareness and Community Engagement for the federal government's National Enabling Technologies Strategy, the level of public knowledge about nanotechnology is fairly low, even while there is a broad acceptance of the possible benefits.

On the medical side, while most people support nanotechnology uses, there is a split amongst stakeholder groups about regulation. Some patient advocacy groups want a cautious approach, pointing to past cases where a new technology has been introduced without careful examination and has caused serious adverse consequences. Other groups that focus on fatal diseases take the view that the creation of a new regulatory structure would impede the introduction of potentially life-saving therapies.

With any new era in technology you will get people who are for and against. We can see that in relation to nuclear energy, for instance. Looking on the positive side, nanotechnology offers a fantastic range of possibilities. Combining it with some new biotechnology initiatives, it is not implausible to imagine that it will not be long before we will be able to restore people's sight, cure paraplegia, and have little instruments within the body monitoring hormone levels and doing other wonderful things. So, the potential is there.

It is not pie in the sky dreaming. I have met with people such as Professor Stephen Lincoln at Adelaide University and also researchers at Flinders University who are working in areas of nanotechnology. What is exciting about nanotechnology is that it goes beyond one traditional discipline. It is not exclusive to chemistry, it is not exclusive to physics; it goes beyond those traditional boundaries.

What are some of the other possible benefits? I have been told by researchers who have been developing oils for vehicles, for example, that, with impregnated nanoparticles, the lubricants are so good that if you drained out the lubricant with the nanoparticles—and they usually test them on a BMW engine; I am not sure why, but it is obviously a good product—the engine would run for literally hours, because the particles have impregnated the metal parts (the moving parts), so you do not get the wear and tear. If you drained normal oil out of an engine it would seize up pretty quickly.

There are other things that are being developed, and naturally the military are very interested because of the potential. With nanomaterials you can impregnate, say, shirts so police officers cannot be stabbed because the knife will not be able to penetrate the fabric. I mentioned before the French cosmetics giant L'Oreal. They are using nanoparticles in cosmetics and, increasingly, they are being put into things like sunscreens, but, as I have already indicated, there are some concerns about that.

I am involved with the Australian Melanoma Research Foundation, and one of their members is Professor Brendon Coventry, who is a surgeon as well as an expert in skin cancers, melanomas and the like. The point he keeps emphasising is that whatever you put on your skin goes into your body. So if you are putting a cosmetic or a sunscreen on that has nanomaterials in it, where we do not know the long-term or short-term consequences, the regulatory standards are pretty rubbery and the labelling does not tell people anything about potential risk, those nanoparticles will go through your body and be able to get into any organ of your body, and here we are allowing this to happen without adequate and appropriate monitoring standards.

In fact, some experts have indicated that they regard inappropriate use of nanoparticles as having a similar consequence as asbestos fibres that have given rise to mesothelioma. So we are not talking about minor or trivial issues here; we are talking about very serious matters. I would challenge people in here who have used some of these products: are they aware of what they are taking into their body? I would venture to suggest that most people have no idea that they are eating nanomaterials, or putting them on their skin, and yet we do not have at the federal or state level an adequate handle on the long-term implications and consequences of that sort of usage.

To summarise, the potential for nanotechnology is fantastic. We now have special microscopes that can examine particles at this incredibly small level and we can rearrange those molecules to create different products, but we are still at the early stage in terms of having a proper and adequate regime. I met with Dr Neal Blewett, who is conducting the review of labelling laws for COAG, and pointed out the deficiencies as I see them in terms of labelling related to nanomaterials, and that was something that he was going to take up as part of his investigation and report.

What we have on the one hand is fantastic potential and opportunities for health issues, restoring people's sight through combining with biotech initiatives—all sorts of wonderful things that can happen in the future. What I am saying is let us make sure that all of the 800 everyday items we are already using meet proper standards, that we have a look at the long and the short-term implications, so that we do not find out down the track, as tragically happened to people in the asbestos industry, that these nanoparticles, used inappropriately, have caused ill health and other problems for people. Like any technology, used wisely and correctly, it can have fantastic benefits, but if we do not use it correctly and wisely, if there is no proper regulation and labelling, then I think we are headed for potential trouble down the track.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.