Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4205 ..

With the exception of Victoria the ACT was the only Australian jurisdiction to extend the ban beyond the workplace. The prohibitions are universal in the territory and ensure that asbestos products can never again be used or re-used in any context or for any reason, including in private homes. In the ACT the safe removal of asbestos, including licensing, is currently regulated as building work through the Building Act 1972 and the building regulations. The standard for the work is set out in the ACT appendix to the Building Code of Australia, which references the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Asbestos Code of Practice and associated guidance documents.

In addition, these documents are approved under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1989 as the code of practice. These arrangements are comprehensive and require the use of a licensed professional to remove asbestos whenever building work is undertaken. Unfortunately, we hear all too often of home owners and others who do not comply with these obligations who demolish and remove asbestos-containing materials without understanding either the dangers or the law.

As I will discuss further in moving amendments to Mrs Cross’s bill, it has been the government’s intention to transfer these requirements to new asbestos regulations under the Dangerous Substances Act, with the goal of developing a fully integrated regulatory approach to the control, safe handling and removal of asbestos, supported by appropriate information and education materials.

The reality of the current situation is that asbestos is a hot topic. While there is a lot of publicity and media attention on the dangers of asbestos, there is little public education, and no empirical data, in place to offer a balanced perspective on the issue. The need for an education campaign to raise awareness in the community of the dangers, to assist people to recognise situations of high risk and to give people the information they require to handle asbestos safely is something that, unfortunately, this bill has not addressed.

This is one of the fundamental problems with the bill. There are also practical difficulties in implementing the proposals contained in the bill. For example, while the bill requires an owner to include details of asbestos on a property in tenancy agreements, there are no straightforward ways for an owner to identify whether there is asbestos present on a property, or where it may be located. Asbestos may be hidden in wall cavities or, to the untrained eye, may look like ordinary plasterboard. Therefore, to be able to comply with the requirement in the bill, and for certainty and safety, this assessment would have to be conducted by a trained building inspector who is licensed to conduct a special purpose property inspection.

Let me discuss in more detail the meaning of “special purpose property inspection”. The Australian standard for residential property inspections provides guidance on two types of building reports—standard property inspections and special purpose property inspections. The detection of health and safety issues, such as the presence of asbestos, is listed by the standard as being a special purpose property inspection.

The Australian standards specifically state that a standard property report should not contain any assessment or opinion that should be the subject of a special purpose property inspection report. Therefore, the bill before us today requires all home owners

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .