Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In Brazil it is not manufactured stone but rather goldmining areas that show the highest incidence. It is a shared international tragedy, but we have been here before. In the 1940s representatives of this parliament from my state implored the federal government of the day to support the promising new asbestos industry in Wittenoom, Western Australia. It was decades before the dangers of asbestos were known, and many of us grew up playing in areas that were adjacent to the substance and sometimes with it. By the 1970s the dangers of cigarette smoking were well documented, and in the 1980s governments started taking action to limit the sale and advertising of that product. In the wards dedicated to palliative care for lung disease across Australia there are people suffering now, as we speak here, from disease caused by substances that cannot be inhaled with any level of safety. Lung disease is a terrible way to die with suffering that's difficult to imagine, notwithstanding the best care we can provide. I acknowledge the dedicated healthcare professionals who work in palliative wards.

The recognition of the dangers of asbestosis and the push to move away from the use of asbestos faced a lot of inertia throughout the 1970s and 1980s, although concerns had been raised during prior decades. In fact, I remember as a young lady recently elected as head prefect at my junior high school in York I attended my first P&C meeting. On the agenda of this P&C meeting was a class trip to the Pilbara which initially included a visit to Wittenoom, which lies on the northern side of the Hammersley Range, now known as Karijini. As late as 1988 parents, teachers and communities still had a vast divergence of understanding of and views on the dangers of asbestos. The Australian approach of 'she'll be right' often reflects our enviably relaxed approach to life and its challenges. However, 'she'll be right' was exactly the program director's response to the concerned parents at the meeting, and a busload of year 10s did indeed call past Wittenoom on that trip. We didn't just visit but camped in that once thriving but now deserted asbestos town, which the state government has now closed. This 'she'll be right' attitude has its place, but it can prevent good people from speaking up and challenging the norm and all too often from putting safety first in the workplace.

It took the might of the Australian trade union movement to crank over the wheels of change in the asbestos industry. Unions were instrumental in the campaign to protect workers from the harms of asbestos. They were instrumental in the fight for justice for those workers who often unknowingly and sometimes insidiously knowingly were put in harm's way. To this day lawyers who hold their Labor values dear continue to fight for victims of asbestos related diseases. They continue to fight for justice and fair compensation, and I mention particularly a former member for Perth, Tim Hammond, in that regard. It may be cold comfort for those in a battle for their lives, but I commend all involved in that work. Just as unions were central then, they are central now. Many countries, as I have said, do not benefit from the strong trade union movement that we have. Spend any time in or around unionists, and you'll invariably hear it said that every worker deserves to go home at the end of every day.

I commend the unions that have spoken out and worked for years now on this issue of silicosis, seeking proper outcomes, protection and justice for their members, including the Australian Workers Union, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining, and Energy Union, the Electrical Trades Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Transport Workers Union, the United Workers Union, the state union bodies and, of course, the ACTU. Thank goodness we have effective organised labour in this country.

In February, Lung Foundation Australia identified a systemic failure to protect workers and stressed that:

A lack of investment in research, monitoring and disease surveillance in Australia has made it impossible to quantify the current prevalence and long-term direct and indirect effects of silicosis on Australian workers …

In May, the Lung Foundation recognised the work the government is doing not only to address silicosis but to meet the needs across a broad range of lung disease areas, including smoking and vaping, and the $263.8 million investment in the budget for a new national targeted lung cancer screening program.

The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 is the first step in ensuring we reduce the risk for our construction workers and people who are working with these products as a matter of course. I note that Minister Kearney stressed in her second reading speech that, although initially only the notification of silicosis would be prescribed by the legislation, it is designed to be extended to other respiratory diseases in the future as needed, because we do not know what the future holds or what other substances are doing us harm. We can only remind ourselves of our duty to keep our ears and eyes open, value those people who are experts in their fields and apply ourselves to the evidence as it arises.

Silicosis is a scourge. It is, in fact, one of the oldest industrial diseases but one which has taken on a terrible new face and increased incidence with modern manufacturing and mining techniques and trailing safety standards. We can, and must, learn from our asbestos experiences. Our duty as legislators is to apply ourselves in whatever way we can to reduce the harm already caused by this threat.

The bill before the parliament is part of that response. The establishment of the national registry will complement and support the further action being undertaken by this government and governments across the country to reduce exposure and associated risks in the workplace. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context