Page 3981 - Week 12 - Thursday, 20 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A number of approaches were suggested, including point-of sale certification. The final result of the negotiated legislation at the end of the last term of the Assembly was that, until the asbestos task force came up with better options, the onus would fall on property owners and residents to advise builders and prospective buyers of the inherent dangers in their buildings. I still believe there are attractions in such an approach but I acknowledge that there would be a number of legal, financial and logistical difficulties if we were to follow through immediately in that way. So I am prepared to support the government’s subsequent strategy of establishing an asbestos task force to analyse both the extent of materials containing asbestos in ACT buildings and the likely most effective and achievable strategies to alert owners, residents and workers to the risks they face.
Having accepted that process and much of the analysis, I accept that existing sections 47K and 47L, which require property owners or residents to arrange formal inspections of their properties and furnish asbestos reports to construction workers when high-risk activity is likely to be pursued—or to prospective purchasers or tenants when properties are put on the market for sale or rent—create as many problems as they address. The key problem is one of ascertaining exactly what can be determined about the level or location of asbestos, or materials containing asbestos, in a property and what it is reasonable to be required to advise others.
The mechanism proposed through the legislation was that buildings likely to contain these materials would need to be tested. It would appear that there are substantial difficulties in getting hold of enough capable people to do the testing, being able to determine clearly exactly what should and should not be tested and ensuring they have insurance cover for that work. Perhaps more importantly, the task force has found that such an approach would necessarily pick up all the people most at risk—chiefly construction workers and do-it-yourself home renovators—at a time when they need the information and awareness. I certainly accept the point that more work needs to be done, and that the existing provisions which this bill repeals would not serve the purpose in the current situation.
In commenting on the issues raised by the scrutiny of bills committee in the first instance, I am pleased that the issue of a person’s right to a healthy environment is becoming part of the human rights dialogue of law-making in the ACT Assembly. I understand, from this task force report and from subsequent comments by the minister, that the issue of ensuring, as far as possible, that people can enjoy an environment free of asbestos underpins both the original legislation and the proposed new framework.
If this legislation were not amended as proposed by this bill, I would be concerned that the outcome would be the reverse of what is intended. Until a more resilient framework for identifying and making people aware of MCAs is established it is likely to muddy the waters to simply make owners and occupiers liable for providing or not providing an unknown raft of information. The real test for this legislation will be early next year when the new framework is introduced.
I would like to make it clear that I will be keeping a close eye on this legislation, as I still hold the position that some duty of disclosure needs to be imposed on residents and owners, and some systematised record kept of the location of these products and materials in houses and other buildings. Finally, I trust that the ACT government has
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .