Page 1014 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 2 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
at any time maintenance or construction work was to be carried out or if the business was to be leased or sold and that they could be found accountable if any asbestos later came to light. It has been generally considered by the task force and by industry groups that such an approach is impractical and inequitable.
Of course, the upside of the original approach was that, in the fullness of time, all properties built before 1985 would have been assessed for asbestos, something that this scheme, thorough though it is, cannot guarantee. There are similar provisions for owners to furnish reports applying to rental properties through amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and, with respect to building workers and contractors, via the Dangerous Substances Act.
I believe that most of the other mechanics of this bill—the transitional arrangement, the powers of the minister to issue advice, the definition of a whole range of asbestos workers and so on—have been dealt with adequately by other speakers and are articulated clearly in the explanatory statement.
Members would understand that the regime to manage asbestos takes effect at the key transaction points, namely, at the point of sale, lease, renovation and demolition. Given that it is proposed to support the scheme with education programs and materials made widely available through construction industry training, at do-it-yourself seminars, at hardware retailers and so on, this is a reasonable approach.
Where it falls down, as I have indicated, is the lack of coherent record keeping. I would have thought it would be quite practical to lodge a copy of all asbestos assessments on a publicly accessible register or to attach it to the lease of the assessed property, since we have the advantage of a leasehold system here in the ACT. We have had some discussions in my office about pursuing this ourselves, although we would need to take on a fairly careful consultation with affected people, including real estate and building industry groups, to ensure the practicalities of our approach. Of course, if the government were interested in doing the work we would be happy to talk with it and to assist it instead.
Speaking of talking, I had understood from a briefing received by my staff that the government had kept the key asbestos protection components in the loop. That particularly means the two women who campaigned so successfully in the ACT and the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia in Sydney. We were reassured that such consultation was ongoing and that those people were fully informed of the details of this bill. However, when my staff contacted one of these women, we were advised that her most recent information dated from the completion of the task force report, that is, in September last year. I had the same response from the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia.
I ask the new minister to ensure that those who are seen to be key stakeholders and activists in regard to this legislation are indeed consulted as it develops. That is particularly important, as this is leading-edge legislation that is being watched very closely by other states. Any weaknesses in the ACT approach can be echoed or amplified in other jurisdictions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .