Silicosis

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:11): 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: As the council and you, Mr President, may be aware, I have previously asked the minister about what action the government has taken or is taking to protect workers from the harms of silica dust. I thank him for his updates to the council, as well as his responses to those questions. Today, of course, in The Advertiser it was revealed that an audit of the manufactured stone industry has resulted in more than 170 notices being issued by SafeWork SA to 36 firms, some of which have been guilty of exposing their workers to dangerous levels—dangerous levels—of silica dust.

The audit found that almost 70 per cent of the fabricating businesses had not conducted air monitoring of the work area to measure the dust output. My questions to the minister are: given there is no safe level of exposure to silica dust, how are the dangerous levels being defined, and what steps will the government be taking to ensure that fabricating businesses are putting in place appropriate safety measures, even things as basic as bringing in air monitoring?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:12): I thank the honourable member for her question. The first point I would make is that I think it is to the credit of SafeWork SA, and indeed the new government, that they are looking at this issue, which has been around for many years. A former Labor government, having been there for 16 years, did—I was going to use a colloquial expression, but I won't use a colloquial expression, or an acronym for a colloquial expression—precious little, perhaps, is the best way of me putting it in relation to—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Sweet.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, that's right, it started with 'sweet'. They did precious little over a long period of time on what is a most important issue. I know the honourable member and groups and workers that she represents and works with on a range of issues share similar concerns. I think it is encouraging that we have done this audit and we have been transparent and published the results. I am mindful that that shouldn't be the end of the process; that is, what is the ongoing role for SafeWork SA?

Indeed, one of the questions I have when the dust settles—if I can use that phrase—on this parliamentary session with gambling, land tax, GM and all those sorts of things is: okay, what is the ongoing role of SafeWork SA? Do we do ongoing audits? Are there random audits? Do we do an annual audit along these lines? They are the sorts of issues that I think any government and any minister should be asking in relation to this particular industry.

More particularly in relation to the issue the honourable member has raised, I will get from SafeWork SA exactly how they have defined it, but I suspect there is a level. The actual measure—I know it is 1.0, I think, per microgram or something like that is the measure of RSP, which is a measure in terms of the degree of silicosis that is apparent, or not silicosis, I should say: respirable silica dust (RSP).

There is a proposal currently with Safe Work Australia and federal ministers to reduce that by half to 0.5. I think the honourable member might have raised the question before in relation to this. There were some stakeholders and I think one of the unions nationally that were supporting 0.2 in terms of the measure of safe level. My recollection, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong, was that I think the ACTU, representing unions and workers broadly, supported 0.5.

The majority of state governments supported 0.5, or ministers representing state governments, but I think Victoria has supported, possibly, 0.2. But again, I will take all of this on notice and bring back a more comprehensive reply, plus the specific measurements. I remember the numbers—1.0, 0.5 and 0.2—but the correct measurement escapes me for the moment.

There is that debate that is going on at the national level at the moment. There is a majority view to halve that safe level of measurement. So I suspect the answer to the honourable member's question in relation to safe levels probably goes back to the existing standard, which was 1.0, but I will check that and see whether that was the measure they used or not.

I know the member would have read the report and probably has had her own reports about it. Some of the practices were just appalling: workers—not just young workers but young workers and older workers—being told to sweep up the dust at the end of the day and all they had was a hat. Precious good a hat would do. So I know there is a greater recognition in industry and amongst unions and amongst many workers and many employers, but not all—and that's the issue—that this is a significant issue now and that the work practices that have existed for decades can no longer be accepted in the interests of worker safety.

Much has to be done. I accept, on behalf of SafeWork SA and the government, that we, the government, need to do much more through our agency, which is SafeWork SA. But not only SafeWork SA, as I have highlighted before: ReturnToWorkSA; SA Health has an active engagement role in all of this; and MAQOHSC, the specialist advisory committee that Martin O’Malley chairs for me. I have only just reappointed him. That probably ruins my reputation, supposedly, as a hater of union bosses, but he did a very good job. I think he is respected within the industry, and even if I have to say so myself I recognise merit and the capacity to do a job when it is being undertaken.

This is an important role, and his willingness to undertake the task but also the fact that people who work in the industry know him and while not everyone would respect him by and large a lot of people respect him means that he has an important role to undertake on behalf of that particular committee. So I will provide further information to the honourable member by way of letter, given that the house is likely to rise, if not today, sometime next week.