Comment by sjy

2 years ago

This is addressed in the linked source, although that wouldn’t be obvious if you’re not familiar with Australian work health and safety law:

> the re-emergence of silicosis in engineered stone workers is also due to a failure of compliance with existing WHS laws … PCBUs [persons conducting a business or undertaking, who are subject to WHS laws] have not done all that is reasonably practicable to eliminate or minimise those risks, and workers have not taken reasonable care for their own health and safety and that of others [which is a criminal offence]. Finally, there has been insufficient compliance and enforcement actions by WHS regulators to drive behaviour change in the sector … A lower silica content engineered stone is not expected to result in improvements in compliance. The features of the sector that have contributed to the current levels of non-compliance remain – the sector is comprised of mostly small businesses with few barriers to entry and a lower understanding of WHS obligations.

3 comments

sjy

Reply
defrost  2 years ago

The "ban" (proposed for July 2024 and after) is actually conditional upon the building industry getting their act together with respect to worker safety and compliance:

National Dust Disease Taskforce Final Report - June 2021

https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-du...

[PDF] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022...

Page 11: (Recomendations ...)

    D) Commence the processes required to implement a full ban on the importation of some or all engineered stone products if, by July 2024:

    – There is no measurable and acceptable improvement in regulatory compliance rates for the engineered stone sector as reported by jurisdictions; and

    - Evidence indicates preventative measures are not effectively protecting those working with engineered stone from silicosis and silica-associated diseases

In short - (We recommend to) Ban this stuff UNLESS building sector improves safety AND demonstrates effective change.

  • Hawxy  2 years ago

    > is actually conditional upon the building industry getting their act together

    I don't think this is correct. The SafeWork report (recommending a complete ban) superseded this health report, and the ministers appear to have aligned on the SafeWork recommendation.

    • defrost  2 years ago

      You may well be correct.

      My goal was more to point out that two+ years ago a recommendation was made (as quoted above) and there's currently six months left on the clock for those changes recommended to be met.

      SafeWork is likely to correct to conclude that the building industry has made no real strides in the past 24 months and won't do squat in the six months remaining.

      This may also be a hammer drop intended to put the fear of lost revenue from upmarket kitched remodels into the actors and scare them into action in order to lift the ban.

      That's a whole other level of real politik that sometimes plays behind the scenes .. carrots & sticks.