Option 5: Limit supply to, or use in workplaces of engineered stone

We do not yet consider there is evidence or community consensus that would be required to adopt the Australian decisions in a New Zealand context. However, it is sensible to consider a full range of options for public consultation to ensure that submissions are thorough and focused.

There is uncertainty about why exposure to duct from engineered stone leads to more rapid and severe disease. Therefore, MBIE has also commissioned an independent scientific review in order to gather available scientific evidence for known risks and impacts of working with engineered stone. Option 5 may only be considered in relation to fabrication and installation of new engineered stone products, however we welcome feedback on this point.^[1]

Based on the current evidence we have available to us, we would not have evidence to recommend a full or partial ban. However, we are interested in submitters views on this option.

Sub-option 5A: Prohibition on the importation, use or supply of all engineered stone

Sub-option 5A would place a total ban on the importation or use and work on engineered stone in New Zealand, similar to Australia’s approach (refer to Annex V).

In principle, ceasing imports, manufacture, or use, of all engineered stone would provide the most effective reduction in harm to workers. Such a ban would eliminate the risk or potential risk of exposure for all new stone products, and would limit the potential for harm from products already in place by restricting the work that could be done on or with them, and by whom. Over time, the residual pool of risk would reduce as existing products are replaced and disposed of. Although it is important to note that the products only present RCS risks to those who cut, grind, drill, or polish the stone, not others who use them in homes or elsewhere.   

However, a complete or partial ban on importation on its own could create uncertainty for consumers, trades, and other businesses, and have considerable financial impacts on businesses. Consideration would need to be given to the transition to alternative materials, and the impacts on businesses that may need to stop trading. Any ban would need to be clear on the definition of “engineered stone,” and contain a robust system for verifying whether a specific product is permitted at the point of importation.

This option would require further consideration of the risks of legacy products, specifically existing engineered stone benchtops already installed in New Zealand homes and what controls or requirements are set for them (e.g. option 3 – licencing of workplaces that manipulate engineered stone).

Sub-option 5B: Prohibition on the importation, use or supply of engineered stone containing 40 percent or more crystalline silica (i.e. partial ban)

Sub-option 5B comprises a partial ban on the import, use, and supply of engineered stone, and would prohibit the importation or use of engineered stone containing 40 per cent or more crystalline silica.

Some manufacturers, responding to concerns internationally, are moving towards product lines with 40 per cent or less crystalline silica content, this is comparable with natural stone products.

A full or partial ban would be effective in reducing harm; however, it is not considered proportionate to the risks

A full ban would essentially remove the risk associated with any new imports, and would therefore be an effective option in reducing harm. Unlike asbestos, RCS risks are contained to a smaller pool of individuals who work with the material. Defining where the line is to consider what is and is not proportionate to the risks to those individuals is something we are interested in hearing submitters views on.

Australia’s ban on engineered stone is a precautionary approach and based on continued scientific uncertainty about the reasons for high levels of harm from work with engineered stone (e.g. whether the risk primarily relates to the crystalline silica content or also to other features of engineered stone such as particle size, shape, and chemistry) and whether the risks to workers can be adequately managed.

A full or partial ban would be clear regarding imports but may not account completely for the risks associated with product already in the country

While implementing a ban may remove risks associated with new product it does not account for the product already in New Zealand. A combination of other options, as presented above, is likely still required. A ban would also not be considered adaptable as it does not account for improvements in safety technology or advancements in the manufacturing of stone.  

Footnotes

^[1]The number of known businesses fabricating engineered stone has increased from 101 in 2019 to 157 in 2024.

^[2]Prohibition notices prevent a specific activity from occurring until the situation is rectified.

^[3]Housekeeping notices require a work area to be cleaned (and maintained) to ensure dust is not building up on equipment or in the fabrication area so the business can readily see if a dust control starts to become ineffective.

< Option 4 | Closing remarks >