Independent MLA Helen Cross has the laudable aim of reducing illness and death from exposure to asbestos.
To that end she proposes that whenever a dwelling is sold in the ACT an asbestos report be contained as part of the building report that sellers must give to potential buyers.
The Assembly very sensibly sent her Residential Property (Awareness of Asbestos) Bill off to a committee.
Who knows? A committee might recognise is as the Election Looming (Awareness of Independent Seeking Publicity) Bill.
Cross intends to rally some asbestos victims to the public galleries, including Bernie Banton, the asbestosis sufferer who attended the commission of inquiry into James Hardie Industries.
How easy it is to latch on to an emotional issue. The damage asbestos has done in Australia is horrific, and the attempt by James Hardie to evade responsibility is appalling. But that does not mean every proposal dreamt up by any politician has any merit or will do anything to help victims or prevent future cases.
Cross said, “If this Bill doesn’t go through, people could still be dying in 20 years’ time from asbestos-related diseases.” Well, if the Bill DOES go through, people could still be dying in 20 years’ time from asbestos-related diseases.
The ACT has already had a hugely expensive asbestos investigation. Every house in the ACT built before asbestos was outlawed was inspected for asbestos ceiling insulation. Where it was found the top of the house was encased in a plastic bubble and workers dressed in space suits removed it. Where it was not found, the householder was given a certificate saying so. Virtually the only asbestos left is fixed sheeting. And all the asbestos evidence and advice suggests that the safest thing to do with this sort of asbestos is to leave it alone. Having building inspectors prying and prodding and testing could easily be counter-productive. It will stir up the very particles that we are trying to keep suppressed. Either that, or the inspections will be an expensive nightmare or entirely useless.
If inspectors scrape for samples to test or try to look behind sheeting for identifying marks they will have to use breathing apparatus and they will have to ensure that no particles escape by sealing whatever part of the house they are testing and vacuuming afterwards. If they do not take samples or look for identifying marks, the exercise will be useless.
Cross has fixed on the sale of a dwelling as the trigger for an inspection. But asbestos is not disturbed by the act of buying or selling a house. It is disturbed by renovations or demolition. It would be far more sensible to require an asbestos inspection at the time of renovation and demolition when there is going to be disturbance any way.
And that is what happens now. Builders are required to follow a code on asbestos removal.
It would be far more sensible to have an education campaign (without too much hyperbole and paranoia) about the dangers of do-it-yourself renovation. Politicians who have inflicted or want to inflict unnecessary bureaucracy at point of sale of dwellings in the ACT fail to see that nearly all sales are between ordinary people. There is no multinational company flogging off houses to unsuspecting buyers. The parties to these transactions are usually equal.
In recent times ACT politicians have rabbited on about affordable housing but hypocritically inflicted unnecessary costly bureaucracy on buyers and sellers.
Compulsory energy efficiency ratings add nothing to the energy efficiency of existing dwellings. The building and pest reports demanded by the anti- gazumping law that came into force on July 1 are proving to be a farce. They routinely say things like: “This report is for the use of the seller. We accept no responsibility or liability to any other party [like a buyer] who might use or rely on this report.” Or, “This report is NOT an all encompassing report dealing with the building from every aspect. It is a reasonable attempt to identify any obvious or significant defects apparent at the time of the inspection” – the sort of obvious things that any sensible buyer could see for themselves, in other words.
Or, “This is a visual inspection only limited to those areas and section of the property fully accessible and visible.” Most of them are full of disclaimers and qualifications that would make any buyer want their own inspection or rely on their own eyes. Must we now have another round of useless reports at time of sale, this time about asbestos? And if asbestos is such a worry, what about people other than buyers of dwellings. What about renters moving into their new home? Why should they be treated any differently from buyers? What about buildings that are never sold – schools and other government buildings, for example. Why should the people who use these buildings be vulnerable to asbestos exposure? Or maybe there is no need for renters and schoolchildren to be protected because they will not be disturbing the asbestos. If that is the case, it proves the point that renovation, not sale, is the key. If undisturbed asbestos is a problem there should be an audit and removal across every building in the ACT. But that, of course, would cost public money and cause ratepayer outrage against the proposing politician. How much easier is it to inflict cost on private parties which they only feel every decade or so when the sell a house? Yes, asbestos presents a danger. Yes, it is appalling that people are disabled and killed by asbestos-caused diseases. But let’s attack the danger and spend money where it will be effective.
Helen Cross was angry when the Assembly quite properly sent her Bill to a committee. She said: “Politics is being played with an issue of life and death.” She is, of course, quite right. It is just that her awkward use of the passive voice leaves it open to voters to decide who exactly they think is playing the politics with an issue of life and death.