Page 723 - Week 02 - Thursday, 10 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Asbestos poses a significant and serious health risk and is implicated in life-threatening diseases such as lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma, and it has caused incalculable suffering to many Australians. It is essential that our laws to regulate this toxic product are robust, accurate and effective. I understand that this definitional change is the result of a process of review by the national industrial chemicals notification and assessment scheme. This scheme is the commonwealth regulator tasked with managing the national notification and assessment scheme in order to protect people’s health and the environment from the harmful effects of industrial chemicals.
The scheme reviewed the definition of asbestos, the differences between the various mineral forms, the health effects and the scientific testing methods for asbestos. Following the review, it advised that all states and territories should refine the definition of asbestos used in local regulations, so that the relevant names of the different asbestos-related minerals are expressed in a specific way. I understand that Victoria, Northern Territory and South Australia have recently introduced these same changes and the same process is underway in other jurisdictions.
The Greens will support the definitional change to the term “asbestos” that is proposed through the bill. It is part of a national process involving the national regulator. It will help to ensure that our local asbestos laws remain up to date and accurate and that they can operate without unnecessary confusion or unintended consequences.
I would just like to note on this issue, particularly in relation to asbestos, that the Greens would also like to see down the track the development of an asbestos register. This is something that the government has indicated initial support for. I believe this would be the next step in providing further protections for people exposed to asbestos and the damage it will do to their lives in the future.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Health and Minister for Industrial Relations) (11.35), in reply: I thank members for their contributions today. The Dangerous Substance Amendment Bill 2010 will amend the definition of asbestos used in the Dangerous Substances Act 2004. This definition will also apply to those parts of the dangerous substances (general) regulation that apply to asbestos. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify what should be treated as asbestos for the purposes of health and safety regulation.
As I have already advised members of this Assembly, asbestos is a naturally occurring silicate that can be present in a range of minerals. The same minerals might not contain any asbestos at all. From a legal point of view, it can be very difficult to accurately state what governments are trying to regulate for health and safety reasons. The asbestos form of these minerals, such as the mineral tremolite, may contain asbestos but could also be used to make a range of other products, such as decorative household tiles.
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify one aspect of the bill in accordance with the revised explanatory statement I tabled in relation to the bill earlier this week. As set out in that statement, “asbestos product”, where that term is still used in the legislation, refers to all of those products that contain asbestos, as that is now more
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video