Page 715 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
problem was not known. Ultimately, 1,060 houses were identified as having asbestos insulation. These houses have since had their living areas sealed from the roof spaces to make them safe for their occupants under a program managed by the Asbestos Branch.
The problem faced in Canberra is unique. To our knowledge, Canberra is the only place in the world where 100 per cent pure, loose asbestos has been used in homes on such a scale. While Worksafe Australia's code of practice provided the necessary guidelines and principles for asbestos removal work, experience in the asbestos abatement field has generally involved bonded material containing some asbestos rather than pure, loose asbestos.
As a consequence, safe and effective removal techniques for the work in the ACT homes had to be developed from first principles. The removal techniques which were finally included in the government specifications were based on the widest possible consultation - including outside Australia - with experienced asbestos removalists, unions, householders and, of course, experts from Worksafe Australia.
Tenders were called by the previous ACT Government and based on the specification closed on 12 July 1989. Unfortunately, it was at this stage that the progress faltered badly. It took the previous Government until November 1989 to make a decision and then it was only to let a contract for 100 homes. This has caused additional trauma and anguish for those 1,060 families waiting to have the asbestos removed from their homes.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Berry, I draw your attention to standing order 202(e). You continually and wilfully disregard the authority of the Chair. I warn you again.
MRS NOLAN: There has been constant criticism about the lack of action and commitment, many heart-rending stories, a very emotional public meeting, persistent media attention, an increase in the number of requests for priority removal and an erosion in the value of people's primary asset, their home. This could have been avoided if the previous Government had acted more decisively.
While the government strategy for completing the program within four years is based on having two major contractors, local firms will continue to have an opportunity to participate in the program. Approximately 180 houses remain either for the smaller firms to take up under private removal contracts, or for one of the major contractors.
To facilitate the involvement of smaller firms, the Government has decided to continue the reimbursement scheme for householders who decide to contract directly with removal firms. The maximum reimbursement limit was increased from $35,000 to $40,000 from 20 February 1990.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .