Education and Children's Services (Asbestos Removal) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:12): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Education and Children's Services Act 2019. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:13): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Aberfoyle Hub Primary School, Aberfoyle Park Campus Preschool, Aberfoyle Park High School, Adams Road Children's Centre, Adelaide Botanic High School, Adelaide High School, Adelaide North Special School, Adelaide Secondary School of English, Adelaide West Special Education Centre, Agnes Goode Kindergarten, Airdale Primary School, Akuna Kindergarten, Alberton Primary School, Aldgate Primary School, Aldinga Beach Primary School, Aldinga Payinthi College, Allenby Gardens Primary School, Allendale East Area School, Amata Anangu School, Andamooka Primary School, Andrews Farm Community Preschool, Angaston Primary School, Angle Vale Preschool, Angle Vale Primary School, APY Trade Training Centre, Arbury Park Outdoor School, Ardrossan & Districts Community Kindergarten, Ardrossan Area School, Ardtornish Primary School, Ascot Park Primary School, Athelstone School, Auburn Primary School, August Park Primary School, Australian Science and Mathematics School, Avenues College, Avenues College Beatty Avenue Campus—and that is just the As that I have read from.

There are some 580 government schools—587 to be more precise—and preschools listed on the asbestos register as at December 2023, a list that was disclosed to me via a very recent freedom of information request, and so today I am introducing the Education and Children's Services (Asbestos Removal) Amendment Bill 2024 as a call to action for the development and execution of a strategic plan to rid our government schools and preschools of the legacy of asbestos once and for all.

The proposed legislation seeks to amend the said act, mandating the complete removal of asbestos from land, buildings and facilities of all government schools and preschools within a 10-year time frame. Further, it mandates transparency and accountability, requiring the Minister for Education to provide annual progress reports to parliament.

There are arguments, and certainly plans have been put in place previously to manage asbestos, that dormant asbestos can be managed. However, we are at a point now where we have to move beyond mere management. Our children deserve better, our educators deserve better, and the consequences of asbestos exposure are well documented. It is indeed our duty to ensure their safety without compromise.

Exactly what that plan looks like, granted, does not sit within my area of expertise, and I note that as a state we have in place a South Australian Asbestos Action Plan. That plan lists the various responsibilities for every department across government when it comes to managing, monitoring, and removing asbestos, including the Department for Education. I note that in the plan, when it comes to Education, the responsibilities are of management.

I think the point that I am trying to make through this bill, which is consistent with what other states are doing, is that we need to do more than just manage asbestos in those schools. Five hundred and eighty-seven education facilities across the state is an extraordinary number, and we do not know the degree to which asbestos is contained at all of those sites. We know that there are registers around asbestos that is present, but there is certainly scope for us to draw inspiration from initiatives in other states, such as Queensland's Statewide Strategic Plan for the Safe Management of Asbestos and indeed Victoria's removal strategy. Nationally, there is a collective effort toward the proactive removal of asbestos, and what we do know is that momentum is growing, and we need to get on the front foot in South Australia.

Just by way of explanation, we have previously had, I suppose, an ad hoc approach to asbestos removal across the country. It started with a reactive removal policy frame mind. It moved to some other schemes, then it moved to proactive removal in some states, particularly in Victoria, where, when it comes to removal, they have instigated the establishment of the Victorian Asbestos Eradication Agency, established in 2016, to provide Victoria with a coordinated whole-of-government plan for the ongoing removal of asbestos from its buildings.

That includes government offices, hospitals, train stations, community centres, prisons and TAFEs. The Victorian School Building Authority, which is part of the Victorian Department of Education, manages the asbestos safety program. They had a $407 million investment to undertake the largest-scale asbestos removal program ever completed in the state between 2015 and 2020.

Following an initial audit in 2015 of 1,712 government school sites, high-risk asbestos was identified at 497 schools and was removed by March 2016. Asbestos that might pose a risk in the future, such as that behind walls or eaves of older buildings, was identified at 1,287 schools and was removed by the end of 2020. Part of the asbestos safety program included the installation of new architecturally-designed permanent and sustainable modular buildings to replace older asbestos-containing buildings.

We have the example of Queensland, where asbestos was removed from 196 buildings across 133 schools during 2020 to 2021, with a further 55 removals scheduled beyond that time frame. The ACT government allocated $15 million over four years in the 2021-22 budget for the removal of hazardous material, including asbestos. In South Australia, asbestos has been removed in over 50 schools. There are still 587 schools, and that was part of a $1.5 billion investment in public education to modernise and upgrade schools. That is a far cry from what is occurring in Victoria.

The Tasmanian government's $3.1 billion construction stimulus package for COVID-19 recovery also included a School Revitalisation Maintenance Program worth an initial $10 million, with an additional $6.5 million investment. There have been moves towards an incentivised removal program, and that really applies predominantly to commercial and residential properties making use of tax deductions on environmental protection, but when it comes to schools I think it is fair to say that we have two states leading the way, and they are Queensland and Victoria, which have made a concerted effort to rid their schools of asbestos.

We know that in those states a significant amount of investment was made into the removal of asbestos, but it is not a significant amount of investment that could be conceived as unaffordable or unattainable in budget terms, particularly in light of the issue we are considering. Despite the fact that we have the action plan in South Australia, despite the fact that we have an asbestos management program that operates in schools in South Australia—and that is the Asbestos Management Procedure, which helps high schools, early learning centres and childhood services to effectively manage the risks associated with the presence and removal of asbestos in buildings and facilities in line with legislative requirements—I think we have now all accepted that we have got to a point where we need to do more than just manage.

As I said before, there is plenty of evidence to show and to demonstrate that there are no safe levels of asbestos exposure or risk that we can afford to take. Now, $407 million in the space of five years is not a great expense in the scheme of things when you have some 500 schools in Victoria that had all of their asbestos removed. In fact, I think it is a drop in the ocean compared to the long-term costs this has on our communities, our families and our societies.

We do have to confront a regrettable truth that the construction industry leant heavily on asbestos products in building and erecting many school buildings across South Australia before the nineties. We are fully aware of its presence, and the time has come to eradicate it.

I say that during a week when a national conference is taking place in Melbourne where asbestos advocacy groups are meeting. This is one of the issues they have been championing, one of the issues they want to see our state move ahead with in line with those other jurisdictions that have already taken very proactive steps as opposed to reactive steps. The feedback from them is basically that it is time to do the same here.

I am confident in the government's commitment to addressing dust disease issues, and I am really hoping for a positive and collaborative response from them. I acknowledge the work of many people in this place on the issue and the multipartisan approach that we have taken on this very important issue. In particular, I acknowledge the work of the Hon. Emily Bourke and the Hon. Reggie Martin as well as the Hon. Tammy Franks, and I acknowledge the Attorney's commitment to addressing many of the issues I have raised with him directly as they relate to dust diseases and the necessary changes to the legislative frameworks that exist.

The government has been open-minded and keen to address what, over time, have become shortcomings in our laws. There are changes we are expecting this year around return-to-work laws, which are simply no longer meeting the needs of people suffering from asbestos-related diseases. As a whole, I think this parliament has done an extraordinary amount of work on this issue; it is certainly work we have all taken a great deal of pride in. I also acknowledge the Attorney's commitment and indeed the Hon. Tammy Franks' commitment on the issue of engineered stone, and we are seeing how far we have come in terms of moving to address that issue here.

There is no question in my mind that we all share the same concerns on this issue when it comes to asbestos exposure. Many of us here have been touched personally by the effects of asbestos exposure, and we all want to do what we can.

As I said, this bill is very much a skeleton bill. I have not set out what the plan should look like; I am mindful of the fact it needs to be costed, I am mindful of the fact it will require further audits. I am also mindful of the fact it will need to be considered in the context of the current existing management plan, but that is only one in terms of managing asbestos in buildings. What we are saying now is that we really need a plan for removing that asbestos from those buildings, and I cannot think of a better place to start than with our education facilities.

I think 587 is an extraordinary number, and of course there are varying degrees of asbestos in those buildings. However, I think what this bill does do is set a minimum benchmark. I have set 10 years in this bill; I have said that within 10 years we should have removed asbestos from all those schools. That might be something we need to tweak as well, as I said, but I do ask honourable members to take into account that in other jurisdictions they have managed to do this within time frames of as little as four or five years.

It is not an impossible task, but it is a hugely important task in order to prevent asbestos exposure and the risks associated with asbestos exposure. So I am saying let's start somewhere. Let's put in place a plan and set a time frame that we can all agree to work towards. Queensland is doing it and Victoria has started doing it. As I said, the costs have not been unachievable in those jurisdictions.

In fact, I was quite surprised at the figures I was given when I looked at those jurisdictions, because I thought it would have cost a lot more. It did not, it has not, so I think that is something that is well within our grasp. I am hopeful that the government, the opposition and the crossbench will consider this bill with the intent with which it is put forward. That is one of collaborative work amongst all of us to ensure that as far as possible we eliminate the risk of asbestos exposure. With those words, I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.