Prof. Ian Freckelton
Monash University, Australia
Abstract Title: Regulating the Public Health Risks of Engineered Stone
Biography: Ian Freckelton is a King’s Counsel in full time practice as a barrister throughout Australia. He took silk in 2007 and was admitted to the Bar in 1988. His practice is trial, appellate and advisory and principally in medico-legal matters across areas of disciplinary, personal injury, criminal and commercial law. He has also been a Judge of the Supreme Court of Nauru since 2017 and has been appointed a member of ten statutory tribunals at both Commonwealth and State level in Australia, including the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria. He is a Professor of Law and a Professorial Fellow in Psychiatry at the University of Melbourne, where he is a Co-Director of the Masters of Health Law Programme, and an Honorary Professor of Forensic Medicine at Monash University, and an Honorary Professor at the Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand, La Trobe University and QUT. He has also been a Professor at Johns Hopkins University in the United States. He was the Commissioner at the Victorian Law Reform Commission which resulted in Australia’s first legislation legalising medicinal cannabis.
Research Interest: In mid-2024 Australia took the unparalleled public health law step of banning work with engineered stone, also known as artificial stone, a product made from crystalline silica-containing aggregates bonded with a polymer resin. It was the first and, so far is the only, country to take such robust legislative action. The Australian initiative followed a substantial number of workers involved in manufacturing and installing the product in bathrooms and kitchens contracting the serious lung disease of silicosis. The controversial Australian initiative was a public health intervention that took place after the failure of softer forms of regulation that had sought unsuccessfully to encourage safe working practices in order to provide protection to workers. This paper reviews the evidence base and the ineffective public health and safety measures that led to Australia’s legislated preclusion on the product. It analyses the international evidence in relation to the risks posed by engineered stone and the knowledge that has grown about silicosis caused by this and other forms of respirable dust. It argues that the evidence that has continued to emerge in the aftermath of Australia’s decision is growing stronger about the risks posed to workers from engineered stone. It contends that the need to take robust action to protect vulnerable workers from silicosis and associated diseases requires an international consensus on prohibiting manufacture, installation and imports of the product.