John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to present this motion to the parliament. This motion is named in honour of the late Bernie Banton, the inspirational anti-asbestos campaigner who lost his battle to mesothelioma almost three years ago today. Despite his terminal illness, he fought so that the health disaster caused by asbestos was exposed and stopped. He fought for the rights and safety of his co-workers and their families and for justice to bring those responsible to account. I had the great honour of knowing Bernie and I know his courageous widow Karen, who continues Bernie’s fight against the devastating effects of asbestos related disease. I have witnessed a courageous Australian who believed in doing what is right and fighting not only for himself but for everyone affected by asbestos.

In this chamber we are all well aware of the David and Goliath style battle between James Hardie and victims of asbestos, including Bernie Banton. With the assistance of the unions, Bernie, Barry Robson, President of the Asbestos Disease Foundation of Australia, and other sufferers were successful in their fight for recognition, justice and compensation. Through their courage they helped raise awareness about the dangers of asbestos. Governments, trade unions and individuals such as Bernie Banton have all played important roles in raising awareness of asbestos and in banning the sale and use of asbestos and asbestos products in Australia.

Although Australia has banned asbestos, the very alarming fact is that, despite the evidence of the very adverse and lasting health effects of asbestos, it is estimated that the world production of asbestos is still more than two million tonnes a year. That is why, today, I have moved this motion and, most importantly, that this House express its concern about countries such as Canada that continue to export asbestos to countries such as India and many other countries in South Asia. Further, we express our concerns that efforts to list chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Treaty, which requires importing countries to be warned of the risks associated with hazardous substances and products, have been blocked by countries such as Canada.

Armed with our experience of asbestos, Australia should lead the international efforts to ban the sale, mining and use of all forms of asbestos throughout the world. Many medical and scientific articles highlight the severe risks posed by asbestos and should serve as a haunting example to the rest of the world. As I have stated before in this place, it may only take one asbestos fibre to cause an asbestos related disease, decades after initial exposure. The more one is exposed to asbestos particles, the greater the risk of developing and asbestos related disease in the future. The prognosis for mesothelioma is chilling. The average life expectancy from diagnosis to death is 152 days and treatment options are very limited.

The Bernie Banton Foundation estimates that by 2020 some 40,000 Australians will have contracted asbestos related cancer. Alarmingly, it has been reported that the national incidence rates for mesothelioma in Australia are the highest in the world. That is why I have worked with my community to raise awareness and improve the lives of those affected. In 2007 I joined Bernie Banton’s fight to get mesothelioma treatment, Alimta, listed under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. After a very successful campaign, which collected over a thousand signatures in my electorate alone, the former health minister approved Alimta under the PBS for all asbestos disease sufferers to help improve and prolong their lives.

My community also supports the campaign for an international ban on the mining, sale and use of asbestos—also through a petition. The local petition received overwhelming support with more than 1,000 signatures collected. Many petitions were returned with notes and letters containing personal stories of lives affected by asbestos and noting the need to stop this from ever happening again to innocent people.

The Bernie Banton Centre is located in the grounds of Concord Repatriation Hospital in my electorate of Reid. The federal government has provided significant funding for the establishment of the centre and I have the pleasure of knowing its Director, Professor Nico van Zandwijk. Important research is being conducted at the centre to discover treatments for asbestos related diseases and, one day, a cure.

Despite the ban on asbestos in Australia there is still great concern about the continued threat asbestos poses to all Australians. In an interview with Heath Gilmore, of the Sydney Morning Herald, Professor van Zandwijk expressed his concern at the very real risk that Australians still face from environmental exposure to asbestos. Asbestos was historically a threat to those who had been exposed through their work; more recently, it has been a threat through the increase in the number of home renovations and demolitions being done without the necessary precautions. Professor van Zandwijk fears that future generations will have to deal with asbestos related diseases contracted from environmental exposure, including from contaminated landfill material being unearthed. He said:

We don’t know the level of potential exposure and we need to develop a greater understanding. It is a matter of increasing awareness and developing a register of where this is happening.

We have a duty to ensure that we are vigilant at every level of government to safely dispose of asbestos and prevent new generations from falling victim to such a deadly disease. If the effects of asbestos in Australia are not compelling enough, let us have a look around the world. An article published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives in July this year states that an estimated 20,000 asbestos related lung cancers and 10,000 cases of mesothelioma occur annually across the populations of Western Europe, Scandinavia, North America, Japan and Australia. It is estimated that, in Britain alone, mesothelioma will claim 90,000 lives by 2050 and asbestos will account for more than half of all birth related cancer deaths.

Although 52 countries have banned all forms of asbestos, many more developing nations still import and use this deadly product. There is strong evidence that all forms of asbestos cause asbestosis, malignant mesothelioma, lung cancer and laryngeal cancer and may even cause ovarian and gastrointestinal cancer. Further, for more than 20 years asbestos has been declared a human carcinogen by respected health organisations such as the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Moreover, scientific communities overwhelmingly agree that there is no safe level of exposure to any form of asbestos and, therefore, no reason to exempt a type of asbestos from a worldwide ban.

The most important factor, I believe, in the call for an international ban is the fact that the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives is preventable. Safer alternative materials and products have replaced asbestos, so there is no need to continue using this deadly material. However, many believe that the political and economic influence of the mining and manufacturing industry has prevented a worldwide ban. Surely, preventable loss of life must take precedence over economic gain and Australia must continue to speak out on the danger of asbestos to the lives of others around the world. We know all too well the serious cost to the environment, our health system and our community of not speaking out against such a catastrophe occurring in other less developed nations. Sadly, countries such as Russia, China, Brazil, Canada and Zimbabwe continue to produce large amounts of asbestos. Countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa still use asbestos—including China, India, Thailand, Vietnam and the Ukraine—and will likely see a significant increase in the number of men, women and children affected by asbestos related diseases.

This could be prevented if all forms of asbestos were banned worldwide. The Rotterdam convention is an international agreement to help regulate global trade in hazardous chemicals that are either banned or severely restricted due to their serious effects on humans and the environment. The convention was established to help protect countries—in particular, developing countries—from importing such hazardous chemicals without prior informed consent. Effectively, prior informed consent is legally binding to ensure that governments are aware of the health and environmental risks before they import materials regulated under the convention. Under the conference regulations a hazardous material can be listed only if there is unanimous agreement of the 131 nations which are parties to the convention. At the 2008 conference an attempt to list chrysotile, the most prevalent type of asbestos, was opposed. I note that more than 100 countries tried to list chrysotile on the Rotterdam convention list. However, not surprisingly, the few countries opposed to listing chrysotile are the same countries that still use asbestos.

One former constituent, Mr Ralf Kluin, who has followed my anti-asbestos campaign, wrote to me and responded to my motion with the following:

Vested capitalist/industrial interests, dealing in dangerous material, for nothing other than for blatant self interest, exposing unwitting people, those with only their labour to sell, dangerously employed, with little or no compensation and looking at an early death; the communities living and playing in the vicinities of these asbestos mines; and the production of product from this poisonous asbestos material, scientifically proven to kill; the owners must be shut down and wherever possible, prosecuted.

We must challenge the countries and industries that support asbestos mining, production and use and call for an international ban, because that is what is right. We cannot allow a repeat of the reckless and irresponsible behaviour of companies like James Hardie here in Australia to be repeated around the world despite countless warnings. The World Trade Organisation called the so-called controlled use of asbestos a fallacy. The World Health Organisation stated that the only efficient way to eliminate asbestos disease is ‘to stop using all types of asbestos’. I stand here this morning with my parliamentary colleagues and thank them for their support as I continue my call in this place for Australia to lead international efforts to ban the sale, mining and use of all forms of asbestos, such as chrysotile, throughout the world. (Time expired)

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In supporting many elements of the motion today, it is probably important to look at the work that is occurring in Canada at the moment in addressing some of the issues in the export of asbestos to developing economies. That is the area that I will focus on this morning. In Quebec there are, I think, two small mines still exporting chrysotile to developing economies like India and parts of Africa. This is of great concern because a number of tactics have been used to try and bring that trade to an end and so far they have been unsuccessful.

A motion like this draws our minds to what we are doing in this country. The Australian Labor Party’s position on uranium is not so dissimilar to the debate we are having today about asbestos: the great tension about whether we can mine something and export it overseas even though we choose to not use it domestically. While I think it is great to bring a euphemistic motion before this chamber, it is important to remember that, if you take just a slightly different look at another mineral, in many cases you will find that the very movers of this motion are doing exactly the same thing with a different element. That said, we can look at Canada and understand that some very powerful coalitions are forming to pressure that country to revise its position on the export of—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene and ask a question.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Wentworth willing to give way?

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the member is: in relation to uranium and the argument that he is putting before the House, is he arguing that Australia should not export uranium? Also, is he arguing that the mining of uranium creates the same medical side effects that are caused by asbestos?

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is an excellent question which I will answer as I progress through the speech. What we have is tension between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec, who both find themselves tacitly supporting the continued export. The concern for many who are opposed to what is effectively the transfer of asbestos to developing economies—where the understanding, knowledge and regulation of the use of this product are fairly limited—is the responsibility a developed economy has to make sure that is done fairly and safely. The answer probably is, in current arrangements: very, very little.

Some have attempted to use the Rotterdam treaty, which focuses on pesticides, as a way of preventing the use of a product that, they would argue, can be used safely only in an almost theoretical sense. While the figures diverge, the Canadian-government-sponsored Chrysotile Institute will say that it is 99.8 per cent safe to use asbestos under certain conditions. I think everyone in this chamber would know that those conditions do not exist around the world.

The best figures we have about the number of deaths due to asbestos are, I think, even higher than those the member provided earlier. If you take all of the deaths in the developed world, it is in the order of 100,000 per year. We need to be balancing that morally against the economic impact for economies. Choosing Canada because it is a developed economy and the wealthiest of the asbestos exporters, let us consider the price that they would pay if they were to cease the export of asbestos. The answer is that there probably are 200 to 500 jobs in those mines. Some would argue that those mines are already economically barely above water. Many of them are still reliant on government sponsorship to survive. So this is a sector that is struggling.

We also know that there is direct support from the Canadian government. There is a very financially favourable loan to expand a new mine. But we also know that the Canadian government has a link with the Chrysotile Institute, which they support to prepare newsletters like this. I found this of enormous interest. This is a 12-page document that promotes the safe use of asbestos. It even includes beautifully illustrated headers showing smiling children from developing economies, who are obviously delighted that asbestos is arriving on their shores. On further reading, what it is effectively saying is that asbestos can be safely and responsibly used, under controlled circumstances. It then goes into significant detail to convince the world that there is no longer ‘any exposure’ theory—that it is no longer the case that any form of exposure can lead to cancer. While I regard that as being an intellectually fascinating detail in this document, in a practical sense it is a complete waste of space, time and taxpayers’ money, if I could make that observation from the other side of the Pacific.

The current Canadian government do not want to lose a couple of seats in Quebec. They do not want the backlash that could occur if there were to be some restrictions on the mining of asbestos. And, fundamentally, a developed economy does not really have any concern for how a product, once it leaves its shores, is used when it arrives in the market that has purchased it. This should be of enormous concern. It does sound a little bit like the tobacco industry, and, as I have said already, it sounds a little bit like the Australian’s Labor Party’s approach to uranium.

Let us be very clear about this: there have been and there will be extreme statements on both sides. I will just allude to a few of these. Firstly, we are seeing, particularly in Canada, very few politicians prepared to speak out about this topic. We are only just starting to see some cracks here, with the NDP and some federal Liberals—and, in Canada, unions, outside Quebec—starting to support the words of the previous speaker.

If you look a little closer at who graces the pages of these Canadian government funded newsletters, it is—yes, you guessed it—the union movement. Right at the top of it, you will be interested to read that the chrysotile asbestos labour unions from Quebec are on the front lines, fighting hard on this issue to continue the export of asbestos. I think it is just worth making sure that that is on the public record, because that is printed in a Canadian government funded newsletter from an institute which is itself run and owned by someone who previously owned an asbestos mine. So it does appear to get murkier.

While I cannot pretend to fully understand the ins and outs of asbestos in Canada, it is also interesting to see some of the rhetoric that is suffused through these Canadian government sponsored newsletters. One example is: ‘We have been vigilant and perseverant in defending the rights of workers.’ That certainly evokes the language of the front lines of the left, doesn’t it? These are the guys who are defending the jobs of the people who dig this stuff up. There are 200 to 300 of them, and probably another 500 who are indirectly associated with asbestos export. They are the very people who you would potentially put out of work—but to save the lives of 100,000 people. It has to start somewhere, doesn’t it?

If you bring a motion to this place, you need to realise that the case being made to continue the status quo is not always being made by powerful industry. It can sometimes be made by a labour union, and sometimes by a government that is defending its own economic interests. I just place that before the chamber: that newsletter, ‘for the safe and responsible use of chrysotile’. Of course, when they make their case, they leave the word ‘asbestos’ out, because that is a little bit distasteful these days, isn’t it? So instead, they use the chemical name to try and avoid any insensitivity.

In short, every health organisation you have ever heard of will talk about the dangers of asbestos and say that more needs to be done, and what we have here is one developed economy that certainly does not appear to be doing enough. You can call it indifference but you can also call it a focus on a domestic economy. Parts of Quebec are probably not doing that well at the moment and those few hundred jobs, let us be honest, support families who would be extremely disadvantaged were they to be transitioned into other forms of the economy. So we have to be looking for solutions to that if we are to aspire to those noble aspirations that were mentioned in the previous speaker’s motion.

I am not saying that any politician is an enthusiastic advocate of asbestos. Obviously they are not. But I think it is important to point out the tensions. The residence of the Canadian Prime Minister is currently having asbestos removed from it and the House of Commons in Canada in recent years has had the asbestos removed from it. So the argument is: can we really expect that it is completely fair to be exporting asbestos at exactly the same time? Both levels of government, Quebec and Canada itself, find themselves in a situation where it is only continued government support that keeps these mines up and running and they continue to export—and we hear of the dreadful morbidity. (Time expired)

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to support the member for Reid in asking the House to ensure that Australia takes a leading role in establishing a treaty to prevent the mining and export of asbestos worldwide. It is right that we do that because we in this country have lived through the development of the asbestos industry and the plague that it has perpetrated on the families and the workers involved.

Australia suffers one of the highest rates of incidence of mesothelioma in the world, with estimates of 13,000 cases by 2020 and a further 40,000 to 45,000 cases of asbestos related cancer. The dreadful statistics indicate that the rates of incidence of this awful disease are not expected to peak until 2017, even though asbestos manufacture and use as a new product in Australia ceased in 1983. Survival rates are extremely poor with only five per cent of patients alive five years after diagnosis. We as a country know the future of the workers and families in countries around the world where asbestos is now being used quite freely.

While Australia and many other developed nations have banned the use of asbestos many developing countries, including India and other countries in South Asia, are still employing the deadly product and countries like Canada are allowing the sale of this deadly substance to developing nations—knowing full well the risk it poses. We are well and truly watching history repeat itself. Let me take India as an example. It is a place many ‘Parramattians’ literally consider a part of the family. It is a place, for Parramatta, where many brothers, sisters, mums and dads still live. It disturbs me and many other people in Parramatta to know that since 1960 India has used seven million tonnes of asbestos and its usage is only intensifying. Over the last 30 years India’s usage of asbestos has increased by more than 300 per cent.

That this industry is allowed to flourish at a time when the occupational, environmental and domestic hazards of asbestos exposure are firmly established is quite scandalous. Dr Sanjay Chaturvedi said it well when he observed that historically the burden of industrial pollution reaches the developing world much faster than the fruits of industrial growth. In developed countries you cannot even give it away these days. There are laws that prevent society’s use of this poisonous substance. To absorb the fall in global demand, chrysotile asbestos-pushers have aggressively targeted consumers in countries with booming economies but developing health and regulatory frameworks. In India, asbestos producers have found a ready market for their goods and over the last decade India has overtaken all others as Canada’s most important chrysotile asbestos export destination. More than a quarter of Canada’s yearly asbestos exports are to India, raking in more than $50 million for Canadian exporters. Attempts to list chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Treaty in 2006 failed. Listing it under the treaty would require importing countries to be warned of risks associated with hazardous substances. The failure to list this deadly substance leaves many citizens of developing countries importing the product at grave risk.

I support the member for Reid in calling for further international efforts to have the mining and export of asbestos banned world wide. Western knowledge of the dangers of asbestos has been around for a long time. Pliny the Elder first noted many thousands of years ago that people who worked with asbestos displayed a sickness of the lungs, but the first death in modern times from asbestos exposure was recorded as early as 1899, which is nearly 40 years before James Hardie opened its plant at Camellia in my electorate. In 1900, a physician at London’s Charing Cross Hospital concluded that a 30-year-old man had died from an asbestos related disease. The French knew about the dangers of asbestos as early as 1906 and made recommendations that ventilation be increased in asbestos workplaces. In 1917 and 1918 several US studies showed that asbestos workers were dying unnaturally young. In 1916, just over 20 years before James Hardie opened its plant in Camellia, Presidential Life Insurance in the US started refusing to give life insurance to anybody who worked in an asbestos related industry. Yet nearly 100 years later this product is being sold to developing countries, and over the next 50 to 70 years those countries will pay the price for using this material. I commend the member for Reid for bringing this motion to the House, and I support it fully.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Reid for bringing this very important issue to the notice of the House. I have just got off the phone to Vicki Hamilton, the CEO of GARDS, the Gippsland Asbestos Related Disease Support group. Vicki herself lost both her father and her grandfather to asbestos related diseases, and she raised a number of issues. It says in one of her notes about one of the people she supports:

Asbestos support groups are a very unique thing, not only do we have a common foe but the disease is incurable, so the people who come to our group find it difficult to go to other cancer support groups and sit with people who have breast cancer, because they have a hope of being cured, whereas those with an asbestos-related disease know there is no cure.

GARDS began in 1991 as an afternoon cup of tea to support the increasing number of widows in the Latrobe Valley, and eventually they started asking questions about the lack of services available. GARDS has spread asbestos awareness information throughout the area, supported families through support group meetings and free medical equipment to make life more bearable and kept those families connected with the information they need. GARDS has also advocated new drugs, conducted research and worked with the occupational health and safety regulations and awareness campaigns. Their lobbying brought a $21 million regional hospital to the Latrobe Valley in 2006. Up until then, 80 per cent of cancer patients at the Monash Medical Centre at Springvale in Melbourne were people commuting from the Latrobe Valley.

According to Vicki Hamilton, the power station in the Latrobe Valley was warned of the dangers of asbestos by the United Kingdom in the late thirties, yet the problem had manifested itself beyond control or care—it was everywhere. According to Vicki, ‘Any house built up until the late 1980s will have asbestos in it, whether it is under the eaves or floor or in textured paints and tiles et cetera.’ Vicki says that although asbestos is, ‘a really wonderful product, it’s a pity it kills you.’ With no cure and with limited knowledge of asbestos related diseases, Vicki says:

It doesn’t matter who you are, everyone will breathe into their lungs asbestos fibres, we will all breathe them in, they are in our environment, what triggers you to succumb to an asbestos disease nobody knows yet.’

There needs to be a lot more scientific research on that issue. A man walked into the Vicki’s office five years ago and said that, out of a group of 33 men who worked under the same conditions in the Latrobe Valley, he was the only one who was still alive and had no signs of an asbestos related disease. Elaine Callow was living the reality of the kind of devastation that the disease can wreak on people’s lives, and many others in the Latrobe Valley were suffering alongside her. People said to Elaine, ‘You poor thing.’ But Elaine said: ‘I don’t want that; I just want the word to be out there to stay away from it, keep away from this disease. It’s just hanging around, waiting to get the next person and there is nothing you can do about it.’

Vale to Elaine Callow. Elaine lost her battle with mesothelioma on 4 September 2010. Elaine was held in high esteem by the GARDS organisation and will be sadly missed. But she will not be forgotten. Her memory will live on in those who knew her well. She would want us to go on making a difference in the lives of others affected by this deadly carcinogen. She would want us to keep up the fight to rid Australia of this deadly material and to eventually eradicate it from our communities, where it is killing 3,000 people a year. We will miss you very much, Elaine; we enjoyed our visits with you in those last few months. Elaine was one of the GARDS treasures. Rest in peace, Elaine; your battle is now over—till we meet again, 1936 to 2010.

In my closing remarks I want to say what Vicki said to me on the phone. She said we need a whole-of-government approach with every area of government activity looking closely at this matter, and we need housing audits so that, if you go to buy a house, there has actually been an asbestos audit on that house and you know before you buy that house exactly what the asbestos situation is. She said this problem is not going away. Professor Julian Peto, an English professor, predicted that Australia would not peak in 2020 but rather the peak might not be until 2050.

Serious money needs to be thrown at this issue. They already have kits for removal of small areas of asbestos. Every one of us is guilty—I have been guilty in the past—of breaking up asbestos, throwing it in the trailer and taking it to the tip. In Vicki’s own words, a bit of money chucked their way to look after the families affected would not go astray. I say to the member for Reid and members of the government: if you would like to look closely at what this organisation is doing, it is on their website. I pay tribute not only to Vicki Hamilton but also to Brian Clegg, Dorothy Roberts, my old friend and political foe John Parker, secretary of the union down there, and members Marie Smith and Ann Clegg.

I commend this motion to the House and acknowledge that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is predictable that I, along with the member for Reid and the member for Parramatta, would be involved in this debate on asbestos. As people would be aware, James Hardie’s main plant operation was at Camelia in Western Sydney. This touches us very directly. Coincidentally, this weekend I will be at a race meeting at Rosehill for the Asbestos Diseases Foundation. I know of many people who have died from this disease. Asbestosis was one of the contributing factors in my father’s death. Our area has been the location of much illegal dumping over the decades by James Hardie. I put on the record my commendation of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, journalist Matt Peacock, Bernie Banton and the others who have crusaded on this issue. I also express the hope that former management of James Hardie come clean at this late stage and reveal to the Australian public where this illegal dumping occurred in previous years.

I commend the member for Reid for raising this issue. It is just another example of an international problem. When contraceptives are banned in the First World because they are unsafe, they are still marketed in developing countries. We constantly see stories about the illegal export of chemical waste to West Africa—fraudulent paperwork through the shipping corporations and mangy European companies dumping stuff that they are not allowed to dump in Europe. This is just another example of the problem. The hypocrisy of Canada is rampant. We have a situation where that country is prioritising the removal of asbestosis in its own schools. We have a situation where its use is banned in that nation. Yet, the provincial government of Quebec, I am led to believe, can provide a $58 million line of credit to ensure that mines go ahead and that they export the product to other countries which have less control over it, which have less knowledge, which have less infrastructure and which have weaker medical systems.

Mention has been made of the Rotterdam convention of 1998, which seeks to promote cooperation between countries in the international trade of hazardous chemicals. Canada, once a reputable nation in environmental matters, has been in there with India, China and Kazakhstan in trying to ensure that measures are not taken on asbestos and that restrictions in this area are thwarted. Fifty-two countries have banned the mining of asbestos. That says something. First World nations have knowledge, which the member for Parramatta has just put forward, and we have had that knowledge for many decades. It is not debatable and it is not questionable—it is definite. Yet Canada is exporting this material. The ILO has joined with the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Cancer Society in condemning the action of the Canadian government in facilitating, supporting and promoting the continued export of asbestos for the dollar.

India is an expanding economy but there has been promotion of this product by reputable media there. They say it is very safe despite the fact that it is internationally known to be otherwise. The situation is that India will find it very difficult to deal with this product. Internationally 107,000 people die from asbestos related lung cancer each year. The building needs of India mean that there will be very wide usage of it.

India is also at the forefront in the dismantling of international vessels laden with asbestos. India not only imports asbestos for its building and construction industry but also has industries like this, which would not be allowed in the First World, where unskilled, illiterate Indian people are asked to dismantle these ships, thereby putting themselves in danger.

I am not just speaking about asbestos. I noted earlier the danger from other products—25 per cent of the worldwide use of pesticide occurs in the developing world but 99 per cent of acute poisoning deaths appear in those same countries. They do not have the infrastructure; they do not have the means of tackling and combating these problems. I commend the member for Reid for raising what is a very fundamental health issue, which Australia should also be raising in international forums.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would also like to commend the member for bringing forward this motion on the absolute need for action on asbestos—the exporting of asbestos and the need for further action across the world. It has certainly been the tragic experience of this country that no use of asbestos and no level of exposure to asbestos, in any form, is safe.

When talking about chrysotile, the white asbestos; crocidolite, the blue asbestos; or amosite, the brown asbestos, you hear the argument: ‘What about the blue and the brown? That’s the really dangerous staff. The chrysotile, the white asbestos, can be used safely.’ We have seen comments like this made in the Thai media and I even noticed recently on IslamOnline.net someone making the case for Zimbabwe’s export of white asbestos: ‘This is the safe stuff; this is the pure asbestos.’

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no safe asbestos.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly right. I note that there is never any form of safe asbestos in the world. You might refer to something as white or pure and that tends to create the image in a lot of people’s minds that it is somehow better. Others might say that this white asbestos breaks down a bit better, but the harsh reality is that so many people—some 100,000 people around the world per year—die from exposure to blue and brown asbestos and also, most definitely, from exposure to white asbestos. There is no such thing as safe asbestos and it is certainly good that since 2004 Australia has taken many steps forward to deal with asbestos.

Whilst we have members present here who have had personal experiences during the times of the worst excesses of James Hardie I will also make mention of the actions of that company. I would like to say that the behaviour of that company has always been a matter of great disgrace. It would be good if they were fully held to account for their terrible behaviour in Australia’s past—for their mining, their dumping, their obfuscation and their covering-up. That is certainly a matter of great distaste for all in this country who are aware of it.

Much of this motion relates to the exporting of asbestos from Canada. As I have said, Zimbabwe is also an exporter, as is Russia. As has been said by all other speakers, it comes down to when we ban things in the Western world. For example, Canada has banned the use of asbestos in its own country but somehow its industry still needs to go on so they are more than happy to export it to India. I wonder whether India itself could start making a little bit more effort and maybe talk about banning its own importation of asbestos to help protect its own people. Bangladesh is another country that suffers from the effects of asbestos because it still has a very dangerous ship-breaking industry, an activity which I think India is working towards banning. A lot of asbestos has been used in shipbuilding, and people in Bangladesh, particularly in Dhaka, are suffering greatly through the ship-breaking industry and exposure to asbestos.

In the limited time I have left, I certainly endorse the motion. Canada should stop this terrible export industry.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion that the honourable member for Reid has brought before the House and I thank him for so doing. It is one of those issues that must unite us all. A lot of countries have banned asbestos, both mining and imports and exports, but there is still some way to go. The motion that the honourable member for Reid has put before the House talks about international efforts to list chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Treaty. James Hardie had an asbestos mine in Baryulgil, which is in my seat of Page. I will talk a little bit about that and then I will talk about a town in Russia called Asbest that lives off the proceeds of asbestos mining.

In the period from 1945 to the 1970s Australia was a big consumer of asbestos products. The mine in Baryulgil was operated by an almost entirely Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce. James Hardie operated there without any regard at all for the workers. Many inquiries have been conducted, including the one in 1983-84 which concluded that James Hardie should have been aware of the dangers of asbestos long before Baryulgil opened and was under an obligation to protect the workforce. It also noted its own deliberations had been hindered by James Hardie’s refusal to provide medical records or to allow people to give evidence. I have friends who lived and worked at that mine in Baryulgil. One friend, who will not mind me mentioning her, Mrs Irene Harrington, used to wash her husband’s clothes sometimes 10 times a day, when he came out of the mine. The miners used to wear handkerchiefs and things around their faces. That was not very good protection from asbestos. It is one of those tragedies that we are still dealing with. The honourable member for Reid’s motion says:

… Bernie Banton Foundation estimates that by 2020, some 40,000 Australians will have contracted asbestos related cancer …

I suggest that may be a conservative estimate. Other diseases and illnesses that are caused include asbestosis, asthma, chronic respiratory disease and bronchitis.

I pay tribute to the journalist Matt Peacock for his related report which was first broadcast on the ABC program Broadband on 30 September 1977. Matt Peacock is still following this story today. He won a journalism award—as he should have done—for that particular report.

Also, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission  said:

The history of the failure of responsible authorities to address this significant health risk to the Baryulgil community constitutes a … disregard for the human rights of the residents, including their right to equal protection of the law and equality and enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, including public health.

In the short time I have left I will turn my attention to the town of Asbest, a town that is 1,750 kilometres from Moscow, which boasts a quarry and processing plant that produces one-quarter of the world’s chrysotile asbestos, which is commonly known as mineral flax. The quarry and processing plant employ 8,500 people. Asbest is a town of 71,000 residents, so you can see that it survives on what I call a ‘death industry’. How tragic that is for the poor people who have to live and work in that area. Asbest’s involvement in asbestos mining goes back to the 18th century. Marie Jego, from the Guardian Weekly, visited Asbest. She talked to a whole lot of workers and residents Sadly, some of them said the campaign against asbestos was a plot by Western countries to stop Russia from getting access to asbestos. But some local women said differently. (Time expired)

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Reid for his motion. We in Australia have been well aware of the effects of asbestos on humans for a number of years. In large part, this has been brought to public knowledge through the work of the Bernie Banton Foundation. This foundation was founded by Bernie and Karen Banton to support and encourage sufferers of asbestos diseases and their carers and loved ones. The foundation estimates that by 2020 approximately 40,000 Australians will have contracted asbestos related cancer. In recent days a good friend of mine has been diagnosed. Foundations such as this, along with governments, the trade union movement and other individuals, have played a large role in raising awareness about the dangers of asbestos and in banning the sale and use of asbestos and asbestos related products in Australia.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that was widely used between the 1940s and the late 1980s in Australia. It is valued for its durability, fire resistance and excellent insulating properties. Asbestos is extremely dangerous as its fibres are 50 to 200 times thinner than human hair and can float in the air for a long time. It is invisible to the naked eye and can be breathed into the lungs. In Australia, chrysotile asbestos was the most popular form of asbestos used in roofing materials, asbestos cement sheeting—also known as fibro—and pipes.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that is a known carcinogenic. Chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite were all used in the asbestos cement industry for insulation and lagging. Although the use of these substances has been prohibited and there are removal programs in place, considerable amounts of the material remain in some work and residential environments. There have been some recent articles about asbestos materials in school buildings and roofs in Queensland. That situation is creating considerable issues for those particular communities.

Asbestos can cause severe health problems if it is breathed in. Although most of the fibres are removed by the body’s natural defences, some fibres can remain in the lungs. Possible health effects of asbestos include: asbestosis; progressive and irreversible scarring of lung tissue, which impairs breathing; lung cancer; mesothelioma, which is a cancer of the lining around the lungs and abdomen; and benign pleural diseases, or non-cancerous diseases, that can affect the linings around the lungs and abdomen.

Asbestos related illnesses can take up to 50 years to develop in some cases, and, although there are some treatments available, there are currently no known cures. In my electorate of Forde, I have become aware of some cases of asbestosis caused by the presence of asbestos in residential and industrial areas. As I said earlier, a good friend of mine was recently diagnosed with asbestosis. Since December 2003, the use of all forms of asbestos in Australia has been banned. Prohibitions have been placed on the manufacture, supply, storage, transport, sale, use and re-use, installation and replacement of asbestos-containing material. At the same time, the Commonwealth implemented a ban on the import and export of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials. This ban does not apply to asbestos installed prior to December 2003.

The battle over the categorisation of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical under the terms of the Rotterdam convention is ongoing, as countries such as Canada continue to export asbestos to India and other countries in South Asia. On two occasions, Ottawa blocked consensus at the Rotterdam convention to place chrysotile asbestos, a known toxin, on its list of dangerous products. The sale, mining and use of all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos, should be banned globally.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the motion moved by the honourable member for Reid. I thank the member for Reid for once again bringing this issue before the parliament. The battle for justice for victims of asbestos diseases is very important to me and I have been engaged in it for many years. Like many Australians, I have lost friends to the horrible disease mesothelioma, and I have family members who suffer from asbestos related diseases. This is in no small part because the suburbs in my electorate of Throsby have used products containing asbestos as basic building materials for many, many years. Asbestos garages and sheds were used as cricket stumps and tennis nets in the backyards of my childhood. It may be that I or some of my school friends will one day be beneficiaries of the great work of the people in this place and the campaign that I will talk about.

In 2005 I had the great honour of going to work with the ACTU as part of the negotiating team on the James Hardie campaign, as it is well known. That team was led by the now member for Charlton, Mr Greg Combet, and the late Bernie Banton—a courageous man who is known to many in this place and whose battle has been taken on by his wife Karen. Campaigning for justice against James Hardie, a company that sought to abdicate both their responsibilities in relation to asbestos products and their social responsibilities, was a defining experience in my life. I take this opportunity to reply to some of the observations that were made earlier by the member for Bowman, who criticised some of the actions of unions in Canada in relation to the continued mining of asbestos in that country. In this country and around the world the union movement has not always got it right—at least not in the first instance—but I am absolutely certain that had it not been for the work of the trade union movement and the leadership shown by the ACTU and Unions New South Wales, working with the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia and the New South Wales government, James Hardie would never have been brought to book. We set up a compensation fund, the Asbestos Diseases Research Foundation—which has now given birth to research work in the hospital at Concord in the electorate of the member for Reid—and reformed the claims process.

Let us talk today about the important struggle that continues internationally. The terrible legacy of asbestos will live on in this country for many, many years to come as we deal with ways to eradicate it from our buildings, public and private. But we need to ensure that we do not visit that upon other nations in our region and around the world. As a nation that experienced rapid economic growth, especially during the boom years after the Second World War, we can understand the pressures that face developing nations, especially here in the Asia-Pacific. The attraction of strong, cheap, durable and heat-resistant building materials cannot be denied. However, those products that contain asbestos carry a hideous cost, often a cost which is visited upon the people who can least afford it.

So the actions of countries like Canada which continue to export asbestos and resist international efforts to list chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention on prior informed consent is deplorable and should be strongly condemned in this place. As I said, they visit suffering and long-term health costs on the countries of our region and the people within those countries who are least able to deal with those health costs and the suffering that is likely to be visited on them over the long term. For these reasons I am proud to add my voice to this motion and urge all other members in this place to support it.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neumann) adjourned.