2 . Statement of the problem
2 . Statement of the problem
2.1 Defining the problem
Australian workers are developing silicosis as a result of working with engineered stone
There has been a dramatic increase in cases of silicosis and silica-related disease in Australia in recent years , particularly in workers who have been exposed to silica dust from processing engineered stone .
Engineered stone workers are over-represented amongst people diagnosed with silicosis for a number of reasons . This is compounded by the unique hazards posed by engineered stone dust .
One of the key reasons for this is the nature of engineered stone and the RCS it can produce
Engineered stone differs from natural stone in several ways . It is often softer and more malleable , which means more stone slabs can be processed in one day , leading to higher exposure levels over time . Further , evidence suggests that RCS from engineered stone has different physical and chemical properties compared to RCS from natural stone , and other components in engineered stone dust may pose additional health risks or exacerbate the adverse effects of exposure to RCS .
There has been insufficient compliance with the model WHS laws for the level of risk
The exposure of workers and others to RCS is regulated by the model WHS laws as a risk to health and safety arising from work . Since 2011 , there have been robust and consistent laws in place requiring PCBUs , including designers , importers and manufacturers of engineered stone products , to eliminate or minimise the risks to workers and others from RCS so far as is reasonably practicable , including that generated from engineered stone . Under those laws , workers are also required to take reasonable care for their own health and safety and ensure that their acts or omissions do not adversely affect the health and safety of others . There has been , and continues to be , non-compliance with the obligations imposed by the model WHS laws , by both PCBUs and workers . Additionally , historically there has been insufficient compliance activities in respect of the engineered stone industry for the level of risk .
The nature of the engineered stone industry has also arguably contributed to non-compliance and hence the extent of cases of silicosis in the industry . It is comprised of mostly small businesses with few barriers to entry and a significant culturally and linguistically diverse ( CALD ) workforce . Relevantly , these PCBUs had limited awareness of the risks of engineered stone , and their duties to manage those risks , including to assess the risks and implement the necessary control measures to keep their workers safe . Workers too were often unaware of those risks and duties , and their rights and responsibilities .
Some of the mechanisms in the model WHS laws that assist to better manage health and safety risks in workplaces were less likely to be present because of the nature of the engineered stone industry and the workforce . For example , there is unlikely to be a health and safety representative ( HSR ) or a health and safety committee at these workplaces . Where present , an HSR or a health and safety committee can monitor compliance with the WHS laws and raise concerns about risks to health and safety in the business .
DECISION REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT Prohibition on the use of engineered stone Page 14 of 107