The aluminium welding fume limit was cut from 5 to 1. Two industry bodies argued against it, and everyone agreed the evidence was thin

What was being decided

In January 2024 WHS ministers cut the standard for welding fumes (not otherwise classified) from 5 to 1 mg/m³. That change did not touch the separate standard for aluminium (welding fumes), which stayed at 5. Safe Work Australia commissioned an independent review from Professor Tim Driscoll, which recommended aluminium come down to 1 as well, and then consulted on it. The consultation opened 5 December 2024 and closed 28 February 2025.

Safe Work Australia’s welding fumes page now states the standard for aluminium welding fumes as 1 mg/m³. We could not find a dated ministerial announcement of that decision equivalent to the January 2024 one, and we say so rather than assign it a date.

Who turned up

The ten published responses, in the order the consultation hub lists them. Positions are our summary of each submission read in full; the wording each organisation used is quoted below.

Published submissions, aluminium (welding fumes) consultation

Respondent	Position on cutting 5 to 1
Minerals Council of Australia	Opposed, pending better evidence
Boating Industry Association	Opposed, and opposed further review
Chamber of Minerals and Energy of WA	Accepted, while disputing the evidence
Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union	Strongly supported
WorkSafe WA	Supported
Weld Australia	Delete the aluminium limit; use the general one
Steel Reinforcement Institute of Australia	Submission on sector welding practice
BOC Ltd	Neutral on the number; saw a clarity benefit
Two individuals	Not summarised here

Two things sit in the list itself. The hub numbers the responses 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, so at least thirteen were received and three are not published, which submitters may choose. And four arrived about two months after the stated close, on 29 and 30 April 2025. Neither is a criticism; both are the record.

The two that said no

The Minerals Council of Australia put it first in its executive summary. It opposes any changes to the current workplace exposure limit (WEL) for aluminium welding fumes until there is sufficient and robust scientific and health evidence to support a change or review, and argued the consultation paper generalised from other activities in a way that risked false assumptions about aluminium welding fume specifically. It asked Safe Work Australia to consult occupational hygienists for a detailed review.

The Boating Industry Association went further. It does not support the proposed reduction at this time, due to the insufficiency of robust, long-term relevant data, and added that no further review should be undertaken until the appropriate long-term, robust, and relevant data becomes available. That is an argument not just against the change but against looking again.

The two that said yes, on the same evidence

WorkSafe WA is a regulator making a submission to a national body, which is itself worth noticing. Its assessment of the science was blunt and matched the objectors: there is currently insufficient published information to confidently propose either a health-based or risk-based WES for welding fumes or aluminium welding fumes. It reached the opposite conclusion anyway, on the ground that 1 mg/m³ is cited as protective against pneumoconiosis and that with the general welding fume standard already at 1, there is now a strong case to make for reducing the WES for Aluminium (welding fumes) to 1mg/m3.

The Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, which represents welders, strongly supports this reduction as a necessary measure to better protect workers. Its reasoning names the same gap and treats it as the reason to act: exposure standards should err on the side of protecting workers, especially where the long-term data is limited. It cited the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s classification of welding fumes as a Group 1 human carcinogen, and the alignment with New Zealand and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

The one that accepted while disagreeing

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia did both at once, and its reason is the most practical thing in the whole file. Because the general welding fume standard already sits at 1 mg/m³, any welding fume exposure above that already breaches it, so its members note no additional impact by the proposed reduction and accept it. In the same letter it recorded that the evidence reviewed in the consultation paper does not support the proposed reduction.

Weld Australia, the welding industry’s peak body, took that logic to its conclusion and asked for the aluminium entry to be deleted so aluminium fume falls under the general limit, because the IARC ruling did not differentiate between materials being welded. It is worth registering that the welding industry body was not the one arguing for a looser number.

What a duty holder should take from this

The practical point the submissions converge on is the one Safe Work Australia now states plainly on its own welding fumes page: a PCBU must determine what is in the fume and ensure nobody is exposed above the standard for the individual components, as well as the WES for welding fumes (NOC) and Aluminium. These are parallel duties, not alternatives. The aluminium figure and the general figure are now the same number, which is why the mining chamber saw no additional impact, but the component standards sit underneath both and several are far tighter.

If you weld aluminium and you were working to 5 mg/m³, the number is 1. If you were already controlling to the general welding fume standard, this changed nothing for you, which is precisely what the industry submissions said.

Our view, labelled as such

The consultation is a clear illustration of what happens when a limit has to be set and the science cannot settle it. Driscoll’s review said there was insufficient information for a health-based or risk-based standard. WorkSafe WA said it. The AMWU said it. The Minerals Council said it. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy said it. They agreed on the state of the evidence and split entirely on what follows from it, and both readings are coherent: thin evidence is a reason to wait, and thin evidence about a Group 1 carcinogen is a reason not to.

What we would say is that the outcome was made easy by something none of the arguments turned on. Because the general welding fume standard had already moved to 1, the aluminium decision cost duty holders almost nothing in practice, and the submissions from the resources sector say so in terms. A precautionary change is cheap to make when it is already operationally redundant. The harder test of the same principle will come the next time a limit moves without a general standard already sitting underneath it, and this file is worth remembering then.