Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 22 June last year, the Senate voted to establish an inquiry into workplace harm related to toxic dust and emerging technologies. That inquiry became known as the White inquiry, named after Richard White, who instigated it. Mr White developed severe lung disease from working as an industrial sandblaster during the 1970s, blasting inside tanks without protection from the dust particles that filled those confined spaces. He had been hospitalised 28 times since his diagnosis. Living with silicosis has put an enormous stress on him financially, socially and emotionally, and he says it has deprived his children of a normal childhood.

In 1998 he initiated a compensation claim in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. He lost the first trial, the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and an appeal to the High Court of Australia on the basis that he had been a light smoker for a short time in his younger years, yet the results of an open lung biopsy showed evidence of industrially related silica injury to his lungs. Mr White then placed a newspaper advertisement requesting that people who knew or suspected that they had acquired lung or other diseases through working for companies that used sandblasting techniques contact him. By Christmas 2004, he had obtained almost 1,000 names of workers with similar stories. Many of the respondents to the advertisement said that they experienced symptoms consistent with lung disease or cancer, related to workplace exposure to toxic dust, but few had received or sought compensation for their disability.

Mr White and Dr Faunce from the ANU then lobbied for a Senate inquiry into the workplace risks of toxic dust. The White inquiry delivered its final report and recommendations on 31 May this year. Mr White’s submission said:

… toxic dust in workplaces throughout Australia have been causing significant health problems for a large number of Australians.

He said, speaking of his information:

It suggests that these problems have been exacerbated by employers failing to apply and enforce safety standards and precautions. It suggests that Australia currently lacks a uniform system of providing compensation to workers who have experienced health problems as a result of exposure to toxic dust. It suggests that there are significant problems in the legal standards being applied in compensation proceedings.

He said that one of the main areas of controversy in this area, responsible for denying compensation, involves health problems such as asthma, silicosis, emphysema or excess sputum being ascribed exclusively to uncompensable cigarette smoking in workers with that history, regardless of exposure to toxic dust. This conclusion is not in accordance with the best scientific evidence or the approach emerging from the recent UK coal mining disease litigation and inquiry. Another major area of controversy here could involve the toxic ingredients in workplace dust produced not just by commercial sandblasting but by sandmining or tunnelling. The harmful effects of toxic dust must have been known for many years and there are many substances in dust form which lead to health problems for workers—asbestos, wood and fibreglass fibres, silica and spray paint, to name a few.

There was a great deal of discussion in the inquiry about how common toxic dust related disease is in Australia and, while no final estimate was made, the committee concluded that the level of disease associated with workplace exposure to toxic dust is likely to be much greater than existing data suggests. Unfortunately, the committee was told that it is very difficult to work out the true nature and extent of illness, disability and death due to toxic dust because of the lack of quality data. Currently, workers compensation data is the primary source of information and, of course, it is very limited in scope. Workers in some industries, particularly the mining industry, are monitored regularly, but this is not the case for all industries.

The committee report recommends that the Australian Safety and Compensation Council review the National OHS Data Action Plan to make sure that reliable data on disease related to exposure to toxic dust is readily available. It recommended that the Australian Safety and Compensation Council extend the Surveillance of Australian Work-Based Respiratory Events program Australia-wide to provide mandatory reporting of toxic dust related disease. Those measures would go some way to making better data available to guide ongoing policy development.

We heard evidence that toxic dust exposure presents much greater health problems for the general community than has been recognised. We need to find out more about how toxic dust that is carried on the wind and in rainwater impacts on the general public. There is clearly a need for more investigation and research in this area, as in the area of nanotechnology. There is almost no credible research on the health impacts of nanoparticles, despite increasing use of such technology in Australian industry. Nanomaterials have enormous potential in many areas, from medicine to computing and electronics. How significant its implications will be, particularly the hazards to human health, is unclear to us at the present time.

There are also problems with how nanoparticle exposure is measured and assessed in the workplace and the environment. International bodies are looking at how the risks of nanotechnology and nanoscale products can best be managed—and many are working from a precautionary principle. It is a matter of urgency that the information and regulatory gaps that exist in Australia around this issue are addressed and it is important that this is taken forward with broad and comprehensive consultation.

The committee recommended that the national nanotechnology strategy be finalised as a matter of priority and that a working party on nanotechnology be established which would consider international models, the appropriateness of existing regulations, how gaps and uncertainties in that regulatory framework can be accessed and risk management incorporated, possible assessment of safety and whether a permanent nanotechnology regulatory body needs to be established.

These recommendations present an opportunity for Australia to develop an innovative and practical regulatory framework that will not only facilitate the development of an important industry sector but also ensure the safety of workers and members of the public associated with its products.

Diseases from workplace exposure to toxic dust are preventable. They are preventable by putting in place processes which eliminate exposure through safe work practices, which monitor those practices to make sure exposure is minimised and which train and educate workers. To some degree the problem in Australia has not been a lack of regulatory controls, although there are clearly gaps in this area of nanotechnology. The major problem, highlighted in the evidence to the committee, is in the area of implementation of declared standards and codes. In some instances, it appears that there is a lack of inspectors. Regulators also appear to be hampered by the lack of trained specialists such as occupational hygienists.

It is imperative that the Australian Safety and Compensation Council give priority to evaluating and recommending to state and federal governments the required numbers of occupational health and safety inspectors capable of enforcing existing standards as well as any new national standards. It also seems that inspections are only carried out if a complaint has been made, rather than on a routine basis. It was argued that regulators are unwilling or unable to issue to the employer more than an improvement notice. The council needs to review the power of inspectors to ensure that they are able to take appropriate action and it needs to make sure that inspectors are able to be proactive rather than simply reactive. It needs to make sure that information on the risks of toxic dust exposure is available to all workers, perhaps through the development of a national education campaign. Access to compensation as a result of workplace exposure to toxic dust also needs to be addressed, and with some urgency.

This is a complex issue, but it was clear to the committee that Australia needs nationally consistent identification, assessment and compensation mechanisms for people affected by workplace related exposure to toxic dust. It is unacceptable that people have differing access to compensation depending on where they live. These compensation processes need to be linked to best scientific practice in the understanding of disease causation. The New South Wales Workers’ Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942 was identified as a promising model for improving current practices in other jurisdictions.

It is also imperative that the state and territory governments, other than New South Wales, move as soon as possible to adopt the approach of New South Wales and remove statutes of limitation that restrict legal proceedings for claims for personal injuries resulting from exposure to toxic dust. There is also a compelling case for compensation mechanisms to be available other than through litigation. For the sake of the hundreds of Australian workers who have already been affected and for those that may be affected in the future, the recommendations of this inquiry should be acted on as soon as possible.

Debate adjourned.