Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise as well to speak in favour of the bill that's before us, the Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024. I note that I rise to speak after two members whose careers before entering this place, which continue whilst they're here, are in the health profession. They, like the entire health community, know of the dangers of silicosis and silica related diseases that are the result of workers and homeowners who might be working with engineered stone.

When our state governments around Australia came together in this place to ban engineered stone, the recognition was that we did not want engineered stone to become the new asbestos. I would say that, in a very real way, the medical profession, the unions, the experts, were not listened to when it came to asbestos. After a very long community campaign, eventually we did ban asbestos in this country, and we are working now and living with the legacy of that ban.

Over a third of Australian homes have asbestos in them, and the rate of death in relation to asbestosis and asbestos related diseases continues to be above 6,000 a year—too many for a product that people put into their homes during a particular period. It is a legacy that we continue to live with, and it is expected that death rate will increase, unfortunately, because we still have so much asbestos in our built community. Our government, like previous governments, is working with the states and territories on how best to remove it, when to remove it—whether it be heat maps, whether it be working with the real estate agents or with the building industry—to make sure it is removed safely and as effectively as possible. Public buildings, schools, hospitals, homes—you name it—asbestos is almost everywhere. As I said, it is in a third of homes.

When the issues first started to arise in relation to engineered stone, the medical profession, the experts within those fields of research, the union movement, did not wait to say, 'Look, we might need to address this.' It soon became a campaign to ban engineered stone. I was very pleased to be in a government that worked with states and territories to introduce that ban.

The Australian government has committed to protecting Australian workers from the harm associated with silicosis and silica related disease, and that's why, as I said, on 1 July 2020, the government joined with states and territories to implement world's first ban on the use, manufacture, supply, processing and installation of engineered stone benchtop panels and slabs in Australia. We didn't say, 'Let's drill it with water,' or try a separate way. The research was in; the evidence was in; we needed to go for a straight ban. This measure that we have before us now supports and strengthens that prohibition and that ban on importing engineered stone that was implemented on 1 January 2025. What this bill does is amend the act to say that where Border Force and officials come across the stone, it can be seized and destroyed immediately. Similar provisions already exists for other prohibited imports such as tobacco, vapes, dangerous perishable goods and illicit drugs. It is the easiest way to dispose of this product.

It is important to note that engineered stone, because it is used in benchtops and in home building, it is a big bulky product, so by destroying it straightaway, it does not take up space. There is no room for appeals, denials, negotiations. It is imported, it is discovered, it is confiscated, it is seized and it is destroyed. It adds an extra layer of deterrence to those who might try and sneak the product in.

As we know with the asbestos example, it doesn't stop countries or importers from trying to sneak it in. I've lost count of the number of times that our Border Force officials have found asbestos in products being imported into Australia. Whether it is deliberate or unintentional, asbestos is still finding its way into our country, and Border Force officials are working really hard to stop that from happening. It has been found in car tyres, children's crayons and building materials where things have been labelled wrongly. So this bill before us says that, in cases where it is discovered, it will be destroyed immediately. It is important that we have these protections in place to ensure that this dangerous stone is destroyed.

Managing engineered stone as a prohibited import without this amendment would result in a significant increase of these goods having to be stored and also an increase in the associated work that Border Force would have to do to regulate and administrate the management of it after being seized when those resources could be used elsewhere. Who is most affected by this change? Only the importers that are still attempting to bring in engineered stone when they are not supposed to.

Previous speakers have spoken about the nature of this product. Talking to builders and workers in my electorate and to people associated with the building trade, it is essentially a bunch of crap. It's a whole bunch of things slapped together in a slab, sold as fake marble, trying to convince homeowners they can still have a marble finish but with a product that is not marble. It is used in homes to sell a finish that it is not. What we know from the workers, their unions and health professionals is that the cutting of this stone and the concentration of silica and silica dust coming from this stone is what is creating a high level of disease amongst their workforce.

The ban means engineered stone cannot be imported whatsoever. Almost all engineered stone in Australia is manufactured overseas and imported. An import ban provides an additional layer of deterrence at the border, stopping this stone from coming in. I should also say that this is a relatively new product, so it is not like asbestos, where we had decades and generations of legacy product in our built environment. It's a relatively new product, so it means that the number of homes and buildings with this product is a lot smaller than the challenge that we face with asbestos. But that stage of the campaign will come next. How do we then make sure that we are tracking where the stone is so that people who may have purchased a home with it know that if they want to do any work on that home they have to handle that stone product with care. If it is in a benchtop, you are not going to have as much interaction with it as, say, a wall you might be sanding to repaint where you have asbestos. The risk is reduced because it's in the home and it has one purpose. However, it is important that people know, if they have purchased a home with this fake marble, this engineered stone, how best to manage it.

Why is the ban necessary? I've touched on this briefly, but I want to end on this point. It is because workers were dying. We all remember the heartbreaking stories in our media of young families being ripped apart as workers and their families were receiving this diagnosis of silicosis. Exposure to silica dust is a health hazard for workers who manufacture, finish and install natural and engineered stone countertop products. But what we know is that engineered stone has a higher risk of exposure because of the nature of the product. In some states reports have shown that one in four stonemasons who've work with engineered stone are being diagnosed with silicosis. It is unacceptable. That's why we had to bring this ban in, and that's why we are now amending it to see that the stone destroyed as soon as it's discovered. Scientific and medical evidence has found that even when workers cut and fabricate low-silica stone product it generates significant amounts of very fine particles of silica that can then penetrate deep into the lungs, causing the disease, as my colleague pointed out.

At the time of the ban there was overwhelming relief and support from many in the medical profession and the research profession, as well as the union movement. At the time, the ACTU assistant secretary, Liam O'Brien, said that a total ban would 'save lives'. He said, 'We thank the ministers for putting workers' lives ahead of corporate profits.' Another said that engineered stone was a fashion product that was killing workers who made it. And that's the point: it was a fashion product; it was a building choice. There are other choices that we can make for our benchtops in our homes, in our units, in our workplaces. Alternatives are readily available, and we should be choosing those ahead of a product that we know puts tradies' lives at risk for fashion in our kitchens.

We also know from the research—and this is one of the key reasons we pushed for this ban—that there is no such thing as safe engineered stone. There is no safety measure that can be put in place to eliminate the risk and the aggressive lung disease. That is why the ban was necessary. A total ban is the only sensible option. Every day that passed prior to the ban coming in was costing lives. So this bill that we have before us strengthens the ban by destroying the product the moment that Australian Border Force detect and intercept it.

But this is unfinished business, and something our government is up for, and I want to make a few final comments before I finish. We need to continue the investment and the research into the health care of people with silicosis and, equally, people who might have been exposed to asbestos and have an asbestos related disease, like asbestosis or mesothelioma. There is more work to be done for us to support the healthcare research: ensuring that we have nurses and skilled health professionals to support those who might have been diagnosed with these diseases. The mortality rates of people who have silicosis, asbestosis or mesothelioma are far too high. And, as with previous cancers, where, as a government, as a community and as a research fraternity we have invested to improve the health outcomes of people who contract disease, we need to do something similar in this space.

For people who've been diagnosed with breast cancer, the survival rate is now much, much higher. For people who've been diagnosed with melanoma, survival rates are much, much higher. We need to see that investment come into this space as well, because this is a completely preventable disease. This is based upon workers contracting this disease through going to work. So these reforms that are before us—the banning of this product—is very much in line with Labor's fundamental belief that every worker should come home safe at the end of the day. It is not just about being exposed at work to hazardous risks of an immediate danger but also about being exposed to an ongoing risk. That is why these bills are so important.

I've touched briefly on asbestosis, which I think is an area related to this, and that's why I welcome the government's decision to expand the role of the Asbestos Eradication Agency to include dust related diseases, because, as I've mentioned, we now have a legacy issue. This stone does exist in our community—not to the extent of asbestos, but it is there. It is in people's kitchens, whether that be their workplace or their home, and we need to keep track of that. We also need to make sure we're developing guidelines on how best to manage that risk that people now have in their home.

Finally, can I give a shout-out and a special mention to all the young workers who have contracted silicosis through their work and say that we are all thinking of you and your families in your battle ahead. Your legacy will be to ensure that no other worker on an Australian construction site will be exposed to this disease, which leads to such terrible and tragic outcomes.

See this speech in context