Silicosis

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (14:58): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the minister for industrial relations on the topic of silicosis.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There is no safe level of exposure to silica dust, and recently the New South Wales Law and Justice Committee heard evidence that:

…any time you are cutting manufactured stone you have to make the assumption that if you breathe the stuff in you are going to die.

Workers have publicly stated:

There's no way you can produce a kitchen purely, without having some sort of dust come off the manufacturing process…Even when it is used wet (and) turns to sludge, the sludge dries, gets on your boots and turns back to powder.

Doctors have said that the industry has not been monitored effectively by government regulators and that the legislation that does exist to manage it is clearly failing the workers of Australia. It is therefore quite welcome that in January this year the state government announced grants funding for widespread health screening of South Australia's stone industry workers over these national silicosis concerns. At the time of that announcement there hadn't been any confirmed cases of silicosis in South Australia.

Since that announcement there has been one case confirmed and, as of 16 September, 66 cases that require specialist follow-up. There has, of course, been a surge in cases of silicosis identified nationally, as hundreds of workers across the country have developed this lung disease while trying to meet consumer's demands for stone in their kitchens and bathrooms. There are now 260 confirmed cases across Australia, and in Queensland alone case numbers have more than tripled since November. My questions to the minister are:

1. What action has the government undertaken, other than funding this testing, to investigate, mitigate and prevent further cases of silicosis?

2. Given the number of cases and similar moves interstate and that there is no safe level of exposure to silica dust, has the government considered a ban on manufactured stone to prevent Australian workers or any workers dying from silicosis in this country?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:00): I will take and be happy to bring back on notice some more detailed responses to the honourable member's questions. As I have indicated before, the government shares the concerns of workers and their representatives and the concerns that the honourable member expresses on behalf of some of those impacted and potentially impacted by silicosis.

The government has convened, through me as minister, a series of working party meetings, which involves MAQOHSC, SafeWork SA, SA Health and ReturntoWorkSA, to look at some sort of coordinated whole-of-government response to the questions of silicosis. That hadn't existed before in terms of trying to get agencies to work together. The member has referred to the fact that we have provided additional funding. I think I might have placed on the public record a response to a question from my colleague the Hon. Mr Stephens, but I will check the record. I know that ReturntoWorkSA has provided funding in terms of trying to provide counselling and support for those workers who might be impacted or think they might be impacted. I will check the record to see whether or not I have placed it on the record. If not, I will do so.

My understanding is that either a draft or a final draft report from MAQOHSC in relation to the audit that they conducted, or the health survey they conducted, will be available soon. Subject to any issues or advice I might get in relation to confidentiality that might relate to individuals, it's my intention to make public as much of that as I can in terms of shared information.

My recollection is that I am still only advised—and I will check this—that in terms of lodged claims with ReturntoWorkSA there is still only one claim in relation to silicosis in South Australia, which I find surprising—heartening, I guess, but I am not holding my breath that that will be the only one. I think my advice—and I will check—is that that actually came separate to and independent of the screening audit that we have commissioned; that is, it was something that was generated separately through another process.

The 66 number to which the honourable member has referred I think is a number that we had provided to one of the ABC programs—The 7.30 Report, or something like that—which indicates that the advice we received from MAQOHSC was that 66 had been referred to, I think, respiratory physicians for further consideration. That isn't any indication that they have been diagnosed as yet with silicosis. We hope that most if not all of those will subsequently get the all clear in relation to that check with the respiratory physician. Again, some evidence of that will be brought to light from the information I will be able to provide from the report MAQOHSC has provided to us.

There is also work going on at the national level. If there are decisions to be taken in relation to South Australia in terms of the engineered stone industry, then a number of those issues are likely to result in action needing to be taken by and led by Safe Work Australia and the ministerial council.

My recollection is that there is a meeting coming of the ministerial council, I hope, in the next month or so—and, again, I will take that on advice—where these issues are likely to be considered. Certainly, there is discussion going on from Safe Work Australia and a number of the equivalent regulatory agencies within the states and territories in relation to the varying views on what should be done at the national level in relation to this industry.

The one remaining thing I would say is that in some of the discussions I have had with the bodies involved in this area, the one relatively positive aspect on the horizon was that coming out of Italy, I think, there is a new engineered stone product which has a much, much lower percentage of silica in it. The engineered stone products about which there is concern at the moment I think have 92 per cent or 90-plus per cent silica within them. There is a new product which has been developed, I think in Italy, which has a much, much lower percentage in terms of silica within it.

There is evidently a very strong demand for engineered stone product amongst men and women of Australia in terms of their kitchen redevelopments. The development of a safe alternative product which might fit that demand—there would appear to be a strong argument for it and potentially strong demand for it. I am advised there may well be a slightly lesser range of colours, which evidently is important to some people in terms of their kitchen product choices, but again in terms of safety of workers who work within the industry that obviously, from the government's viewpoint, is a more important concern than an individual's choice of colours for their engineered stone product within the kitchen.

So, a long response. I will take the member's questions on notice and bring back a more detailed reply in relation to some of the specifics she has asked in her question.