Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation: Report into the Referral of the Work Health and Safety (Crystalline Silica Dust) Amendment Bill

Ms SAVVAS (Newland) (11:11): I move:

That the first report of the committee for the Fifty-Fifth Parliament, entitled Report into the Referral of the Work Health and Safety (Crystalline Silica Dust) Amendment Bill, be noted.

On 15 June 2022, the Hon. Tammy Franks introduced a bill into the Legislative Council to amend the Work Health and Safety Act 2012. The bill would insert a new part 2A, section 34A and 34B into the act to define crystalline silica and subsequently ban all work exposing a person to crystalline silica dust.

On 1 December 2022 and pursuant to section 16 of the Parliamentary Committees Act, the Legislative Council resolved to withdraw the amendment bill and refer it to our committee, the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation, for inquiry and report, which led to a really interesting period of time for us as a committee over that next year as we heard from witnesses and looked into, of course, the long-lasting impacts of respirable crystalline silica dust.

The committee's inquiry into the crystalline silica dust amendment bill was referred in response to the rise in accelerated silicosis cases in Australia. I think it is really relevant to note here that in the 20 years since asbestos was, of course, banned in Australia, it was a really important time to look at and consider the long-term impacts of asbestos and what is unknown about silicosis with the increased number of silicosis cases in Australia in the last few years.

During the deliberations on the matter, the committee received 13 written submissions and heard from four witnesses. Witnesses who appeared before the committee included SafeWork SA, the Master Builders Association of South Australia, SA Unions, and Cosentino, a multinational manufacturer of engineered stone products to the Australian market.

Cosentino was a particularly interesting submission, I will say, because they are in many ways leaders in terms of changing the market with respect to the production of engineered stone benchtops, not just for importation here in Australia but overseas as well. They were actually in the process of producing a product with a much lower concentration of silica and were trying to, I guess, change the market share in terms of what is available and change the narrative in terms of what is an acceptable amount of silica in terms of the creation of an engineered stone benchtop. That was something that we really had to consider alongside all of the research that has been done and the work that was happening on a national scale at the same time.

These submissions were very comprehensive and detailed and provided a range of opinions and suggested recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment bill. I would like to thank all those who contributed to the inquiry through written submissions and by appearing before the committee. Throughout its inquiry, the committee examined the benefits, opportunities and challenges experienced by stakeholders relating to the bill's proposal to ban work exposing a person to crystalline silica dust. A common theme identified in both the submissions and oral evidence was concern at the bill's lack of exceptions to the proposed ban on all the work exposing a person to silica dust.

Of course, half the earth's crust is made up of silica and an unqualified or undefined ban could potentially have the consequence of halting work in the mining, quarrying, construction, roadwork, farming and manufacturing industries in Australia. There was a suggestion from one witness that an unqualified ban may accidentally ban South Australians from going outside in the sunlight. So it was very important for us to refine the scope and look at the potentially life-threatening impacts of silicosis and of exposure to respirable crystalline silica dust without stopping all mining in South Australia and other activities that may have some exposure to silica in the way that the original bill may have suggested.

The committee concluded that the primary purpose of the bill brought by the Hon. Ms Franks was to address those issues associated with respirable crystalline silica in the manufacturing, processing, manipulation and use of engineered stone in a construction and home renovation setting. That is a really interesting one because, of course, we were not actually able to access engineered stone benchtops in South Australia until the early 2000s, I believe.

The function of an engineered stone benchtop is entirely aesthetic. There is no actual function to having such a product. It is an aesthetic thing that I am sure many people would have in their kitchens, having undertaken renovations or purchased new homes in the last 20-odd years. The impacts of that and the manufacturing of those benchtops over that period has seen such a huge increase in the number of silicosis cases in Australia since their introduction. As a result of that, Safe Work Australia found that engineered stone workers are dramatically over-represented amongst workers diagnosed with silicosis.

Further, whilst the content of submissions received did vary, the committee noted that every submission acknowledged that there were risks associated with exposure to respirable crystalline silica dust. The most pressing part for me as the Chair, and for other members of the committee hearing this evidence and doing our own research, is that so far there is no science that suggests that there is any safe level of exposure to crystalline silica dust. I think that is incredibly important, particularly when having conversations with manufacturers, as I suggested, who perhaps wanted to produce products with a lesser amount of silica in their product, that the research shows that there is still no confirmation that even a low level of inhalation or respiration of silica dust could be safe, particularly to a worker who is cutting that stone.

There was also wide support for a national approach to regulation and enforcement. The committee also relied on the decision regulation impact report provided by Safe Work Australia, called the 'Decision Regulation Impact Statement: Prohibition on the use of engineered stone'. That was published on 16 August. Throughout last year, we know that there were a number of national work, health and safety meetings of the ministers and we knew that there was likely going to be a national approach undertaken in response to that Decision Regulation Impact Statement.

I found it to be incredibly damning not only of the increase in cases in Australia but also the unsafe practices occurring with respect to that product. I found it really interesting when hearing from SafeWork South Australia that, when they went to undertake some investigation processes at the businesses in South Australia that were undertaking the production, the cutting or the installation of engineered stone, at one point there was not a single business that was compliant with the safety practices that were required to make sure that their workers were kept safe in the production or installation of that product—not a single business.

Of course, a lot of them were very amenable to increasing their safety practices, but I did find that incredibly interesting and incredibly concerning not knowing how long those businesses had been in operation without even knowing or being entirely aware, or perhaps some may have been negligent to the fact, that there is no safe level of exposure to such a dust.

The report made several recommendations and ultimately did determine that there is no scientific evidence to determine a safe threshold of crystalline silica in engineered stone and did advocate for a prohibition on all engineered stone products. The committee made one recommendation, and we put out our provisional report with that recommendation in the days leading up to a decision being made on a national basis. That recommendation was made for the consideration of the state government, supporting a continuing collaborative approach to the issue by working towards a national framework of legislation and accompanying regulations regarding the use of engineered stone.

In the days following our draft report there was a significant announcement: a national ban on engineered stone, one that I as the chair very much welcomed. Of course, there are provisions in place to allow those businesses the time to get rid of their products; there was a period of a year, I believe, given to those businesses. But I do think it was a really relevant and really important decision to be made on a national basis and one that really did need to be made on a national basis with respect to trade and construction here in Australia.

I would like to thank all of those who gave their time to assist the committee with the inquiry. We had members in the committee who all contributed in a really collaborative way from all sides of the parliament. The members of the committee at the time were the member for Colton, the member for King, the Hon. Reggie Martin, the Hon. Heidi Girolamo and of course the Hon. Tammy Franks, who has been a strong advocate for work health and safety in her own right for many years. I do want to thank her for bringing this important issue before the parliament in the form of her proposed bill. I also think it is relevant to thank the committee's parliamentary staff, Mr Shane Hilton, Ms Jessica Watson and Ms Tonia Coulter for their assistance throughout the process.

On a personal note, I want to mention for the house just how important I think it was to be undertaking that work. For me it was a moment of real pride to see that we could actually be making some really important recommendations that will actually protect working people not just at the moment but for many years into the future.

Many of you would know and many of you would share a dear friend of the Labor Party who is still struggling with mesothelioma and contracted that as a result of undertaking home renovations, something that was not seen to be a leading cause of asbestos exposure in the past. He was successful in a case that went all the way to the High Court. I used to work with him, and we would refer to his case as a bit like The Castle at times. He took on a giant, took on James Hardie, and went to the High Court, and it was found that there was in fact a duty even to those home renovators who were renovating in that space.

After many years thinking that we had made such a huge decision on asbestos but not necessarily knowing the long-lasting impacts or just how far that would continue to impact regular people, not just people working with the product but people renovating their own homes, I think that said to us that the national ban here on engineered stone products and, of course, extreme preventative measures in terms of the inhalation of respirable crystalline silica dust were incredibly important and incredibly timely, and it was important that we did it before we were faced with an issue like with asbestos—before those long-lasting impacts became more and more prevalent.

I would like to also acknowledge all the individuals who are suffering with silicosis and particularly those who have been working in the engineered stone space for some years. I know that they will welcome the work that has been done on a national basis, and I am really proud that we have made proactive efforts, not just as a state Labor government here but as a federal Labor government and as a bunch of state Labor governments around the country as well, to protect working people, because that is, of course, at the core of what we do. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am really proud to support this one.

Motion carried.