Standing Committee on State Development

Debate resumed from 1 April 2009.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.30 p.m.]: I had almost concluded my remarks on the previous day on which this report was debated. However, I want to add how pleased I am with the Government's response to the Standing Committee on State Development report on nanotechnology. The Government's report is positive, which makes important the work of the committee, the hearings, and the field visits to universities and companies involved with nanotechnology. I thank the Government for its response.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.31 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of my colleague Lee Rhiannon and the Greens to the Government's response to the report of the 2008 parliamentary inquiry into nanotechnology—a response that was released last week. In short, the Government's response is a lost opportunity and a setback for workplace safety, public safety and the environment. While there are some useful commitments, the Government has characteristically backed away from many of the stronger and more critical recommendations of the committee. The Government has committed to push the Federal Government for national mandatory reporting for companies that use nanotechnology, as exists in Canada, France and California. Yet New South Wales has made no commitment to proceed with its own scheme in the absence of a national scheme.

Without any national labelling scheme on the horizon, New South Wales could be playing a leading role in setting standards for industry operations and establishing a State-based scheme. Instead, the Rees Government has dropped the ball, leaving consumers exposed to potentially grave dangers from nanotechnologies. The Government says that it will raise with the Commonwealth the possibility of mandatory labelling of nanoingredients in sunscreens and cosmetics, as recently agreed in the European Union. But the Government has rejected the recommendation for New South Wales to seek mandatory labelling of nanofoods, despite Friends of the Earth polling in 2008 that showed that 92 per cent of Australians supported such labelling.

The Government has also refused to proceed with a State-based mandatory labelling scheme for nanoparticles used in workplaces in the absence of a national labelling scheme. State-based action is not beyond the bounds of reasonableness. In the United States of America, where the Federal Government has been slow to act, as has the Australian Federal Government, states like California have taken up this baton and introduced their own mandatory labelling scheme. It seems fairly clear that the Federal Government is in no hurry to regulate for safety when it comes to nanotechnology. Just last month Dr Craig Cormick, the Manager of Public Awareness at the Australian Office of Nanotechnology, a unit within the Federal Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, responded to the concerns of the Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU] about workplace safety by saying:

We've heard this debate over and over every time a new technology comes along, whether it's a microwave, whether it's gene technology, whether it's mobile phones. How much testing should we do before a product is safe for the community?

It does not sound like Dr Cormick has safety high on the agenda of the Office of Nanotechnology. A central recommendation of the New South Wales parliamentary inquiry was to treat nanoparticles as new chemicals because of their unique physical, chemical and biological behaviour and the consequent novel health and environmental risks they pose. In practice, this would require regulators to conduct safety assessments of nanoingredients before they could be used in products. This crucial recommendation underlines the need for governments to assess health and environmental risks before allowing the widespread application of nanomaterials. Nanoparticles in commercial use have been demonstrated to cause asbestos-like harm to human health and carry real risks of contaminating the natural environment. But the Government has refused to acknowledge these risks, turning its back on the future harm that nanotechnology may well cause workers, consumers and the environment. New South Wales is left with a gaping regulatory hole. With the products of nanotechnology already in some food packaging materials, sunscreens, health products, paints and building equipment, the Government has a clear responsibility to clean up industry practices—

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: As soon as possible.

Dr JOHN KAYE: —as soon as possible. I acknowledge the interjection. In Europe the safety risks of nanotechnology are being recognised by parliaments. Only a couple of weeks ago the European Parliament backed a report by Swedish Green Carl Schlyter urging the European Commission to take strong regulatory action on nanomaterials. Members of the European Parliament said that all nanomaterials should be considered as new substances and warned that existing legislation does not effectively manage the risks associated with nanotechnology. A majority of members of the European Parliament voted for the principle of no nano safety data, no market for all nanomaterials until all relevant legislation is reviewed. Schlyter's report follows the adoption by the European Parliament's environment committee of another report calling for products containing nanotechnology which are already on the market to be withdrawn until safety assessments can be made.

Meanwhile, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work has listed nanotechnology as its top emerging workplace danger. Last month the ACTU called for the precautionary management of workplace risks and nano-specific regulation by the end of 2009 to avoid another asbestos tragedy. It wants mandatory registration of all commercially used nanomaterials and full disclosure to workers of any nano exposure. In this new but rapidly expanding area, the Government should be regulating in a way that respects the precautionary principle. Instead, the Rees Government is burying its head in the sand, despite a growing number of scientific minds urging caution. It is clear that the nanotechnology industry, keen to boost its profits through the use of nanomaterials, will not lose any sleep over the Government's response to this report.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [2.38 p.m.]: I am pleased to participate in this debate on the report of the Standing Committee on State Development into nanotechnology in New South Wales. First, I will focus my remarks on the occupational health and safety implications of the production of nanomaterials. As members would be aware, the protection of working conditions and workers' rights is a passion of mine. Addressing the health and safety issues relating to the potential toxicity of nanomaterials in New South Wales industry presents some matters of urgency. The CSIRO advised the committee that the greatest present risk of human exposure to the potential toxicity of nanomaterials is from nanoparticle "dust" that may be inhaled or, less likely, ingested or dermally absorbed. The CSIRO advised that the risk is highest in the workplace during the manufacture of nanoparticles in dry form, and subsequent processing and handling of these materials.

The primary concern is not the regulatory framework itself but the lack of knowledge and capacity to enable industry to adequately meet its legislative and duty of care obligations. Mr Dunphy, the Director of the Hazard Management Group at WorkCover New South Wales, gave evidence to the committee that current State legislation is designed to cover all workplaces and all risks and emerging technologies. The risk management approach, which forms the basis of this regulatory framework, results in the constant assessment of new risks and dangers, and as such allows for all eventualities. While the current regulatory framework is sufficient to manage the risk of nanomaterials, a lack of knowledge about nanomaterials and a lack of nanotechnology industry infrastructure is hindering the capacity of businesses to act upon their duty of care obligations. Mr Dunphy acknowledged that:

Even with the current controls there are difficulties in applying risk management principles to nanotechnology, principally because accurate and cost effective monitoring and measurement instruments, reference material and testing methodologies are still being developed internationally.

The sheer scope of nanotechnology must be recognised. Nanotechnology is as broad as science itself and has implications for virtually all scientific disciplines. One of my sons has a saying that nano is mega: it is a huge field. The committee heard that the exact number of companies that manufacture or use engineered nanomaterials in New South Wales is unknown, with estimates ranging between 23 and 40. There are a number of issues associated with our currently limited knowledge of the potentially hazardous nature of engineered nanomaterials. A clear issue is that we need to understand the hazards to be able to classify the materials accurately, and subsequently to provide appropriate information for users on labels and material safety data sheets. Secondly, identification of the chemicals present and the hazards they pose also determines the need for other regulatory requirements, such as the need to notify of relevant authorities when certain materials are being used, handled or stored, or the need for routine health surveillance of workers. The lack of knowledge with regard to nanomaterials hinders our ability to assess and measure accepted levels of exposure to nanomaterials in the workplace. I fully support recommendation two of the report, which states that:

The New South Wales Government ensure that all relevant State regulatory agencies be involved in developing a coordinated and cohesive position on what amendments, if any, are required to the current regulatory framework in order to best regulate nanomaterials over their life-cycle.

I draw the attention of the House to the Government's response to that recommendation. While the most pressing issue is the practical application of the legislative framework, I wholeheartedly support doing everything possible to enhance the legislative framework. I fully support recommendation three of the report, which states:

WorkCover New South Wales work with those companies, or premises of which it is aware that manufacture or use engineered nanomaterials of 300 nanometres or less in size in one or more dimensions, to promote workplace safety in the use of nanotechnology.

That WorkCover New South Wales advertise its intention to undertake this endeavour and call for companies manufacturing or using engineered nanomaterials of 200 nanometres or less in size to contact it to participate in their workplace safety endeavour.

This review of the nanotechnology industry will allow Government to provide a more effective response to the health risks presented by nanomaterials. I also express my full support for the stated policy of WorkCover New South Wales that until more is known about the health and safety risks of nanomaterials it impose the as-low-as-reasonably-achievable [ALARA] principle on the nanotechnology industry. Basically, until more is known about nanomaterials, industry should do everything possible to limit human exposure. It is important that we promptly move to redress this imbalance in nanotechnology knowledge and infrastructure so that the nanotechnology industry can move forward safely and deliver on its almost limitless potential for economic growth and discovery.

On this side of the House we believe in civilising capital. We fight to expand employment opportunities while at the same time protecting the quality of those jobs. We should not turn a blind eye to the potential dangers of nanomaterials, nor can we afford to shut down an industry out of hysteria or fear. We must move quickly to forge a middle path, so that our scientific and high-tech industries can travel down it with safety and so gain economic advantages for the State of New South Wales.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [2.44 p.m.]: I join with my colleagues from the State Development Committee in endorsing many of the comments made by the Hon. Michael Veitch. I note with interest the contribution of Dr John Kaye of the Greens, who is not in the Chamber and is not a member of the committee. Like many members of the Greens, he argues that the sky is about to fall in. I do not believe the sky is about to fall in. I think precautionary approaches need to be taken, as is happening generally in Australia and throughout the world. Nanotechnology is daunting and challenging but it also opens a window to an incredibly exciting future. Our committee was very privileged to be asked to look at an emerging technology that will have such a profound impact on our way of life and our future.

The inquiry showed that New South Wales is behind the eight ball when compared with Victoria. Victoria has had a nanotechnology unit since 2003, a joint venture between three major Victorian universities— Monash University, Swinburne University of Technology and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University—with the Victorian Government providing $12 million in funding. I was disappointed when I compared that effort with the way the New South Wales Government has responded to this challenge. This State is behind the eight ball, but it is not too late. The committee was given the terms of reference for this inquiry in December 2007 and some 18 months later the committee finally had a response from the Government. Whilst the response from Minister Jodi McKay accepted the committee's recommendations, I do not think New South Wales is doing nearly enough to support the amazing scientists in the CSIRO and in the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, in the Sutherland shire, to harness nanotechnology and make New South Wales a leader in the field.

Minister Firth gave the committee its terms of reference: essentially to address the regulatory framework and the adequacy of the national nanotechnology strategy. Whilst the committee's recommendations are very firm that there needs to be a national approach to this matter, I think Victoria has taken the lead in the debate in Australia. It is important to note that nanotechnology deals with matter that is one-millionth of a millimetre in size: it is incredibly difficult to get one's mind around that type of technology. It is also important to remember that nanomaterial exists within the environment right now. We could well be breathing in nanoparticulate material, given what exists currently in the environment. Nanomaterials exist naturally and not all nanoscale materials exhibit novel properties.

At a very basic level of science we are yet to develop an internationally accepted definition of nanotechnology. Whilst there is a need for a worldwide regulatory framework, that has been delayed because scientists across the world cannot define or accept an international definition of nanomaterial. In our terms of reference we dealt with the regulation of nanomaterials. The committee heard evidence from David Henry, an occupational health and safety officer of the Australian Manufacturers Workers Union, who wanted us to recommend a moratorium on any nanotechnology involvement. Mr Peter Dunphy, the Director of the Hazard Management Group at WorkCover New South Wales, pointed out that all industrial processes are not without risk, and that it is a matter of balancing the benefits to society with the need for occupational health and safety protection similar to the controls applied to hazardous chemicals, carcinogenic materials, and the many other things that workers encounter in the workplace. Our focus is on ensuring that the hazards that have been used in the workplace are being managed responsibly and that there are appropriate controls in place for the workers, based on a risk-management approach.

One of the committee's strong recommendations regarding risk management was that WorkCover should audit New South Wales companies that are involved in nanotechnology. During evidence given to the committee it became clear that there was no answer to the question of how many New South Wales companies are involved in the production of nanomaterials. The best estimate given was between 23 and 40 companies. It is six months since the committee tabled its report and I still have not received an answer from the Government to those very basic questions of protecting workplaces. I point out that the industry has been very involved in self-regulation and establishing codes of conduct. The industry has accepted the world's best advice.

The committee received evidence that people who employ workers in nanotechnology are acutely aware of the dangers, the risks, and the unknowns involved. Employers are working towards world's best practice. However, we do not have all the answers in front of us, but we have to weigh up the benefits and the available evidence. There has been a lot of attention on a sunscreen developed by the CSIRO involving nanotechnology—a zinc cream that can protect people's faces, especially noses, from skin cancer, with the cosmetic benefit of it being an invisible, clear cream. To have that technology and product available when Australia's rates of death from skin cancer are so high demonstrates that potential threats and dangers need to be balanced with real benefits that assist and protect our community. I highlight also that the State Development Committee is unique: all its members are country and regionally based.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: And very proudly so.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: And very proudly so. Because of that, we spend a lot of time ensuring that regional points of view are put forward. The Hon. Michael Veitch, although he did not actually brag, mentioned that his son has been chosen by the University of New South Wales to join an accelerated science program. He is, quite amazingly, very bright. My point is that it is a passion of country-based members that kids from regional New South Wales have access to the best science and mathematics opportunities. One important recommendation of the committee is that the number of secondary school students pursuing careers in the enabling sciences needs to be increased. The committee noted that the primary government initiative for providing exposure to exciting technology via the annual Science EXPOsed event showed that schoolchildren from regional centres were disadvantaged in their access to that event.

The committee recommended that the Office of Science and Medical Research, in collaboration with the Department of Education and Training, examine and develop a strategy to ensure greater access for regional students to the Science EXPOsed program. Nanotechnology is with us, and it is here to stay. It will bring enormous social and medical benefits to our communities. We must work closely with all evidence that is at hand regarding the workplace and in dealing with business on this issue. That needs to be done in an open and transparent manner, not in a manner that makes people scared of this science. The health advances that will come through science are quite profound.

Further, all the expert evidence given to the committee showed that, unfortunately, New South Wales is not leading the charge in science. We have had two science Ministers since the report was initiated. Leaders in science in New South Wales clearly desire that there be a stand-alone science Minister, not a second-grade science Minister who does not have science as the full focus of the portfolio. New South Wales has a lot of brilliant people. The committee was constantly impressed with the quality of people who appeared before it. [Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [2.54 p.m.], in reply: I am pleased to respond to the debate on Report No. 33 of the Standing Committee on State Development, and I thank all of honourable members who have contributed to the debate. In thanking those members, I also place on record my appreciation of the level of commitment and goodwill they have shown to the work of the committee. The State Development Committee, while robust in its dealings and deliberations, nonetheless works in the best interests of the citizens of this State. I believe that the committee has once again delivered a report that will be of value, and in this particular instance that value extends beyond the scope of New South Wales and will benefit all of the people of Australia.

As members have noted, nanotechnology is not unlike any other human endeavour. Like all technology, and all human effort, it comes nonetheless with mixed blessings. Some technology will be welcome, and others will be unwanted intrusions into our lives. As our report shows, these need to be managed to the best of our skills. I believe that this report will go some considerable way to assisting the State, regulatory authorities, industry, and the consumer to better manage this newly emerging science, technology and process.

This was a most interesting inquiry to be involved with because of the sheer number of professors, doctors and scientists across a wide range of fields who gave evidence to the committee. The committee heard from at least 10 professors and 20 doctors of philosophy and met with representatives from dozens of agencies including Standards Australia, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, CSIRO's Materials Science and Engineering, and Monash University's Australian Centre for Human Health Risk Assessment. I direct members to the witness and submission lists, which will give them an indication of the type of evidence the committee had to deal with.

I believe that my colleagues, and the committee staff who supported us, deserve credit for the large amount of work we undertook to understand this material at the level required to do justice to it in the report. I also draw attention to the fact that the Government has now made its response to the committee's report. As I pointed out in my opening remarks In this debate, the committee's work received considerable interstate interest, and this is reflected in yesterday's Brisbane Times article on the Government's response, entitled "NSW pushes for nano risk labels". The article stated:

The NSW Government will push for national mandatory labelling of nano-sized particles used in workplaces and improved testing facilities to assess the safety of new nanomaterials.

Further, the article reported that the Minister for Science and Medical Research, Jodi McKay, stated:

We need to make sure that regulation keeps pace with technology.

This response has been welcomed widely, and the Assistant Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Geoff Fary, welcomed the New South Wales Government's precautionary approach to nanotechnology, which also backs a national reporting scheme for companies that use, manufacture, transport or dispose of nanomaterials. Of the committee's report and the Government's response, Mr Fary said:

It lends weight to calls we've been making for the Federal Government to act in this area.

I am pleased that the committee has produced a report of considerable value, and I urge all members to familiarise themselves with the interesting and growing science and industry of nanotechnology. I congratulate all involved and commend the report to the House.

Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.