Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Repacholi compared the current situation with engineered stone to the historical use of asbestos, noting the devastating health risks of silicosis. Repacholi highlighted that the ban on engineered stone was implemented on 1 July 2024 and reinforced by an import prohibition on 1 January 2025. Repacholi argued that the bill is necessary to allow for the immediate destruction of seized goods, preventing the accumulation of bulky materials that would strain Border Force resources. Repacholi noted that $32.1 million was allocated in the 2024-25 budget to support these enforcement activities.

Lawrence emphasised the right of workers to safe conditions and cited research indicating that almost one in four engineered-stone workers had contracted silicosis. Lawrence credited unions and researchers for raising awareness and driving the policy response, including the world-first ban implemented on 1 July 2024. Lawrence explained that the bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to allow for the immediate destruction of seized engineered stone, avoiding the standard 30-day storage requirement. Lawrence noted that this measure adds a layer of deterrence and supports global efforts to reduce harm from silica dust.

Rae described the human cost of silicosis in his electorate, noting that the disease is incurable and entirely preventable through occupational safety measures. Rae highlighted the government's establishment of the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry and updates to workplace exposure standards. Rae argued that the bill streamlines the seizure and disposal process, preventing the Australian Border Force from being overwhelmed by the storage of bulk materials. Rae credited trade unions for their advocacy in recognising silicosis as a public health crisis.

Zappia drew parallels between the delayed response to asbestos and the proactive ban on engineered stone, which took effect on 1 July 2024. Zappia argued that expedited disposal is in the public interest to avoid significant government costs associated with storing seized goods. Zappia noted that $32 million was allocated to the Department of Home Affairs to cover seizure and disposal costs over two years. Zappia supported the ban despite arguments that safe handling is possible, stating that the product presents an ongoing risk to the community and that safer alternatives exist.