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

I have a number of matters to raise with the minister. I am going to deal first with the issue of asbestos, as that seems to be in the forefront of attention at the moment. In the spirit of seeking some enlightenment—light as opposed to heat—I invite the minister to respond substantively, if he can; if he cannot answer substantively, then he should say so, rather than giving a sort of ad hominem spray, which is what we had from his counterpart Mr Shorten. This is the issue I want to seek the minister's views on. We know that the received wisdom, official wisdom, on asbestos is—and I am quoting now from the code of practice How to Manage and Control Asbestos in the Workplace, at page 17. It says here:

If asbestos or ACM—

asbestos-containing material—

is in good condition and left undisturbed, it is unlikely that airborne asbestos will be released into the air and the risk to health is extremely low. It is usually safer to leave it and review its condition over time. However, if the asbestos or ACM has deteriorated, has been disturbed, or if asbestos-contaminated dust is present, the likelihood that airborne asbestos will be released into the air is increased.

This is consistent across all the official material on dealing with asbestos.

It was from a similar official publication, the Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos, that Telstra quoted in writing to Mr Shorten as the MP for Maribyrnong in 2009, when they said that the removal of asbestos-containing materials can potentially expose workers and others to higher levels of fibre than leaving the material in situ. Telstra's approach has been not to seek to replace asbestos-containing material unless the pit is disturbed for whatever reason. Of course, what we have seen with the advent of the NBN's deal with Telstra in 2011 is very widespread disturbance and hence a much bigger asbestos management problem than was the case back in 2009. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has made it clear now that, despite the interest he evinced in 2009, he did not raise his concerns about this with either the communications minister or NBN and Telstra in 2011 or 2012.

I want to know from the minister whether it is the government's view—and this is simply to get some clarity on this—that the official standards should be changed or are mistaken and whether Telstra's practice is no longer valid in the sense of not seeking to replace intact undisturbed asbestos-containing material which is in situ—that is to say, buried under the ground—and only to replace it when it is being disturbed. Of course, as the minister knows, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the Telstra pits are being replaced because they are too small for the NBN's purposes.

This is an important point because there is a lot of undisturbed asbestos-containing material in the Telstra network that will not be disturbed even with the NBN, and of course there is an even vaster amount of asbestos-containing material in people's houses and garages and schools and hospitals that is intact and undisturbed. The question is: given the remarks that the workplace relations minister has made, is the government's view that there should be, as Mr Shorten recommended in 2009, proactive material of otherwise stable, undisturbed, intact asbestos-containing material?

If that were to be the government's approach, that is a very significant change of policy, and there is a lack of clarity at the moment as to whether there is now a change of policy on dealing with asbestos-containing material.

See this speech in context