Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Hansard source

When the minister was talking about the political party that could be relied upon to support multinational mining companies, I assumed he was about to refer to the Treasurer and the Prime Minster who, after all, when they were designing their new mining tax, sat down and allowed the three biggest mining companies to design it. That is one of the reasons it has not raised any money.

The minister chose not to answer the question that I asked in my first intervention, which was what did he say, what actions did he take, after 2009 with regard to asbestos-containing material in the Telstra infrastructure in light of his being aware of the problem, as indeed many people were—most people interested in telecommunications were; it was hardly a secret—through his own personal correspondence with Telstra? Then the context changed and the pits were going to be disturbed on a wholesale basis. I should just describe what this disturbance involves. The way the NBN Co.'s network is designed, their junction boxes—what they call multiports—are devices that are being lodged in pits, but the existing pits are too small, for the most part, and so they have to be replaced with a larger plastic pit. Obviously, where the pit is made of concrete or concrete thought to contain asbestos, there is plenty of potential for contamination because the pit basically has to be broken up and removed. So it goes from being an occasional pattern of disturbance to being a near-universal pattern of disturbance. The minister has chosen not to answer the question as to what he did after 2009 in terms of raising his concerns with the minister for communications, let alone with NBN and Telstra. If the minister is not prepared to answer that, we cannot force him to answer it.

I turn now to another question, because it is very important that this issue be dealt with with clarity. The minister is quite right in saying that asbestos is a very dangerous substance. It is a very big issue and there is a complete unity ticket on that point. But we have to be very clear about what we are talking about. Now, the minister in 2009 was proposing to Telstra that there should be a proactive removal of all of their asbestos-containing infrastructure, whether it needed to be repaired, maintained, augmented or not—proactive removal. Telstra came back citing the national standards and saying, no, that would be unsafe.

The minister should tell us—and I think he owes the Australian people an explanation: does he believe that asbestos-containing material, whether it is in telecom networks or elsewhere in the built environment, should be removed proactively, regardless of whether it needs to be mended or altered or drilled into or repaired? In other words, is the minister still of the view—

An honourable member: It could be in my garage.

Yes, it could be the honourable member's garage—if the honourable member has a garage with asbestos-containing material in the walls or in the roof, and it is intact, it is not friable, it is not flaking or powdered. Is the minister saying that that type of asbestos-containing material should be proactively removed? It is important for him as the minister for workplace relations to let us know that. And, if he does take that view, what does he say to the point—and I am not expressing a personal opinion on this but I want him to address it—that was made in the Code of practice for the safe removal of asbestos, which is a publication by his own department, I believe, which states:

The removal of asbestos-containing materials can potentially expose workers and others to higher levels of airborne asbestos fibres than leaving the materials in situ.

Is he arguing for a wholesale, proactive removal of all asbestos-containing material, even when it is stable, intact and not friable? That is a very important issue that he should address, because this issue is too serious for generalities and political grandstanding. We need precision.

See this speech in context