ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT REVIEW
ISSUES PAPER RESPONSE FORM
Please complete in RICH TEXT or WORD DOCUMENT Format
Individual or Organisational Name: Victorian Trades Hall CouncilChapter 2: A National Strategic Plan
2.1 ‘Aim’ of the National Strategic PlanQuestions / Comments
1. Is ‘elimination or reduction of asbestos related disease in Australia’ a suitable aim for a national strategic plan to improve asbestos awareness and management in Australia? If not, what do you think the aim of the plan should be? / The toxic nature of asbestos is well-known and accepted, and so the aim for a national strategic plan must be to eliminate asbestos related disease in Australia. Australia has one of the highest levels of asbestos-related diseases in the world, due to our extensive use during the twentieth century in the construction of both domestic and commercial properties. Approximately 700 Australians are diagnosed with mesothelioma every year – thousands have contracted this and other asbestos- related diseases over the years, with the ‘peak’ of mesothelioma cases still not reached.
Following the hierarchy of control, the most effective way in which to work towards elimination of asbestos related disease is to eliminate exposure to asbestos in the built environment – and to do this by eliminating the asbestos itself (acknowledging that total elimination of it is not possible as there is naturally occurring asbestos around Australia)
The VTHC participated in a National Asbestos Summit in June 2010 and endorsed the National Declaration: Towards an Australian Safe Asbestos Free Environment which called for the elimination of asbestos related disease and exposures to all forms of asbestos in Australia. It states:
Australia has an unenviable record of one of the world’s highest rate of asbestos related diseases and a legacy of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in many workplaces and buildings- public and private, commercial, domestic and industrial.
The use of all forms of asbestos in Australia has been banned since 2003, including its import and export. But, because of the legacy of its use, we have not solved the problem of asbestos exposures – for either people at work or in the general community.
The current evidence is that
1. despite a general level of awareness about the dangers of asbestos, workers are unsure and unclear about specific safe work practices
2. householders are not aware of the extent and nature of ACMs in domestic dwellings
3. affected householders are unsure and unclear about specific safe work practices for home maintenance and improvement
4. the condition of asbestos containing building materials is deteriorating and
5. the safe disposal of ACMs, especially for householders, is difficult and very often not properly followed.
To eliminate deadly asbestos related disease in Australia we must decrease and eventually eliminate all exposures to asbestos.
The National Asbestos Summit called for the establishment of a National Asbestos Authority (NAA) for a Safe asbestos Free Environment by 2030. This is to be achieved by implementing a 20 year phase out program involving the prioritised removal of asbestos – based on the state of the asbestos-containing materials – from the built environment in the following manner:
· Red: immediate removal (or ban of the target area, or both)
· Yellow: within 5 years or by 2020, whichever is earlier
· Green: within 15 years or by 2030, whichever is earlier.
The VTHC re-iterates its commitment to this aim which will result in the complete elimination of ACMs, rather than continuing the current and ineffective ‘risk management approach’ which could ensure the existence of asbestos in perpetuity and can never achieve the elimination of the risks of exposure to asbestos and the elimination of the burden of asbestos related disease from Australia’s future generations.
The use of a staged approach to the management of ACMs is not novel. The ACT Regulations are a useful and successful precedent that could be adapted for use nationally.
Unless this is achieved, hundreds of thousands of Australians will continue to be exposed to asbestos, and thousands more will in the future contract mesothelioma or other asbestos-related disease not only in workplaces, but in their own homes[1]. This must not happen.
Australia is the country with the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world[2], Australia has lived through two “waves” of asbestos-related disease — the first from the mining of asbestos and the manufacturing of asbestos products, and the second from asbestos use in industry. There is now clearly evidence of a “third wave” of the asbestos disease epidemic in Australia: non-industrial users of asbestos products, a significant number of whom are the non-professionals involved in cutting/fixing ACM during home renovations or maintenance and other DIY activities, or who demolished asbestos cement products during renovations.
It must be remembered that the condition of ACM in the built environment is deteriorating, increasing the risk of exposure. Even the most recent materials containing asbestos are approaching 30 years old, and as the peak usage of ACMs was prior to the 1970s most, most are now 40 and 50 years old, and much having been exposed to weathering and contact with machinery, vibration and human activity. These materials will continue to deteriorate and pose unacceptable risks until such time as they are removed.
The VTHC proposes that a further aim of the National Strategic Plan must be to achieve nationally consistent legislation for asbestos – not only under the OHS ‘umbrella’ but in all areas (eg local government, private housing, environmental, etc). As noted in the Issues Paper, the current approach in Australia is fragmented both across and within jurisdictions. This results in many unacceptable ‘gaps’.
2.2 Priority Areas under a National Strategic Plan
2. Are the priority areas suggested above appropriate for a national strategic plan? Are there any other priority areas which should be addressed in a national strategic plan? If so, please specify the activities which you considered are required to support the additional priority areas? / The VTHC strongly supports the priority areas identified in the Issues Paper– with our comments below:
· Education and raising public awareness;
Agreed – however it is also of paramount importance that the education and awareness campaigns not be limited to the generalised public. We are aware, and research by Safe Work Australia confirms, that tradespeople need on-going education, training and awareness-raising. The UK’s HSE has found it necessary to run a highly-publicised and targetted awareness campaign for carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc.
· Identification, removal, handling, storage and disposal practices;
Agreed
· Reporting and disclosure of where asbestos is located;
Agreed – but the National Strategy should also ensure that the above two ‘priority areas’ achieve/incorporate the outcome of a National Audit of asbestos in Australia, including asbestos in public buildings, workplaces, domestic premises and disposal/dump sites.
Further, all buildings should display coloured stickers which inform, simply by the colour, the implied level of risk and timeframe expected of total removal.
· Information (data) management and reporting on associated health issues.
Agreed – but in addition to this further, and related priority areas must be to:
o Achieve a nationally consistent approach to the management of dust disease compensation claims
o Achieve a coordinated national approach for medical research (through seeking adequate government funding and coordinating allocation of such funding)
The Issues paper notes “These are similar to the areas identified by both South Australia’s Asbestos Safety Action Plan and Tasmania’s Improving Asbestos Management in Tasmania.” And then lists three other areas identified in the South Australian and/or plans as: (with our comments)
· Partnership, particularly strengthening partnerships with the community through a whole of government approach (South Australia);
Agreed – this should clearly form part of a National Strategy – without strong partnerships in which common aims are agreed and committed to, achievements will be difficult to secure. There are many organisations which are already active and committed in the area (eg Unions; Asbestos Disease Support Groups; training organisations; etc) and potentially other community groups such as Men’s Sheds that could be involved.
· Intervention/compliance (South Australia and Tasmania); and
Agreed – however, this may not necessarily mean direct intervention/compliance, rather, the National Strategy should ensure that a nationally consistent as has been acknowledged and agreed under the Harmonisation of OHS legislation, unless there is
· Prioritised removal (Tasmania)
Absolutely fundamental to a National Strategy – as noted above, the VTHC re-affirms that any National Strategy MUST include a timetable for the prioritised removal of asbestos in the built environment, and that this should be over a twenty year period.
The prioritised removal must be, based on the state of the asbestos containing materials:
o Red: immediate removal (or ban of the target area, or both)
o Yellow: within 5 years or by 2020 whichever is earlier
o Green: within 15 years or by 2030 whichever is earlier
This process would be based on the ACT regulations which had different dates for different sectors
The 20 year planned phase out must be reflected in individual Asbestos Registers (see below) and as a whole, the planned phase out be reviewed every five years by the National Asbestos Authority (see below)
· An additional another key priority area to reflect the additional aim of achieving nationally uniform legislation covering all aspects of asbestos (in workplace, in domestic premises, disposal, etc)
2.3 Coordination and management of a National Strategic Plan
3. Is there an existing organisation or body that could take responsibility for oversight, administration and/or coordination of a national strategic plan? If so, which organisation or body could do this and what features make it suitable for this role? / No, the VTHC does not believe that there is an existing body or organisation that could adequately carry out the tasks of oversighting, administering and coordinating a national strategic plan.
4. Alternatively, is a new organisation or body required to oversee, administer and/or coordinate a national strategic plan?
· What would the role and functions of a new organisation be?
· What would its membership be?
· How would it be established?
· How would it relate to existing Commonwealth, state and local agencies?
· Should it have a finite life and a sunset clause – if so, to which organisation(s) would any residual functions transfer?
· What would be the relationship of local government to such an agency? / Every examination of the current regulatory approach to the management of asbestos in Australia has come to the same conclusion: it is piecemeal, fragmented, even ad hoc and fails to build on successes and the lessons learned by those taking innovative and constructive approaches to the elimination of the risk of exposure to ACMs.
This view is based on the experience of our Tasmanian colleagues, where as noted in the Issues Paper, a separate Asbestos Unit was established within Workplace Standards Tasmania. The original recommendation from the working group had been to establish a totally ‘stand alone’ body, however, the final outcome was the Unit within Workplace Standards. Our colleagues report that the effectiveness of the Unit is less than what had been hoped and envisaged, and that much of its work seems to be in the policy area.
For this and other reasons, the VTHC believes that a stand alone, national statutory authority is needed to ensure the appropriate level of importance and activity is carried out.
Role and functions
In any case, irrespective of the outcome (ie whether a stand alone authority is established, or the decision is to establish a unit of some sort within an existing body), the suggested role and functions of the organisation [which we will from this point on referred to as the ‘National Asbestos Authority’ (NAA)] must be to audit and monitor all aspects the National Asbestos Strategy. Activities related to this include, but are not necessarily limited to:
1. Management of Asbestos in the Australian environment
· Assist with the development and implementation of nationally consistent legislation to cover all areas of asbestos
· In light of the current harmonisation of health and safety legislation, review the effectiveness and efficiency of the nationally harmonised asbestos regulations, including the removal licensing system, and the adequacy of the competency based training requirements, the different level licenses, and the risks associated with what we fear will be the establishment of companies offering unlicensed removal work
· Follow up as necessary with all relevant agencies and promote cross-jurisdictional and cross-agency communication
· Coordinate and keep the National Registry/Audit (of registers showing location of asbestos in buildings, assets)
· Collate information on asbestos disposal sites, contaminated sites, and areas with naturally occurring asbestos
· Have legislative ability to enforce prioritised removal programs and other activities
· Have powers to publically report, including to Federal Parliament, on performance of the 20 year phase out
· Develop and coordinate awareness raising campaigns and educational programs and materials
· Act as a clearing house for information and resources – for example, establish national databases
2. co-ordinate information on the treatment, care and support of people with asbestos related disease
3. advice to the Australian government on international matters in relation to asbestos
Membership
The NAA would be have representation from all tiers of government, including local government (eg Australian Local Government Association), industry (including asbestos removal contractors), unions, community and asbestos support groups. The NAA would have the ability to call for expert advisors and to conduct necessary investigations and reports to allow it to perform its functions.
How would it be established
The NAA should be established under specific legislation as an independent statutory Authority with powers appropriate to enable it to coordinate and enforce a range of matters.
Life of Authority
The Authority should have a finite ‘life’ but this ‘life’ should be at least the time needed to ensure that that the National Strategy is well underway and that work in a prioritised removal plan is well-established. If necessary, the NAA should remain in existence for the entire twenty years of the removal plan.