HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 March 2024.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:38): I rise to indicate that the government will not be supporting this bill. While the intention behind it is understandable, particularly given recent events, the proposal to proactively remove every trace of asbestos from every government building and preschool by 31 December 2034 is simply not practical.

Contained asbestos poses limited risk unless damaged. That is why South Australia uses a rigorous risk-based approach that is grounded in expert advice. The Department for Education's asbestos management procedure, developed with the Department for Infrastructure and Transport and reviewed by SafeWork SA, sets out exactly how asbestos is identified, monitored and removed, ensuring compliance with all legislative requirements.

When category 1 asbestos, or high-risk asbestos, is detected, it is removed immediately. No government school site in South Australia sits in the high-risk category on the statewide register. Other asbestos is removed during planned upgrades or when buildings are demolished. This approach is working. Category 2 asbestos has been reduced by 81 per cent, from 94 sites in 2020 to just 18 in 2025. This has occurred safely, systematically and without unnecessary disruption to school operations.

The Department for Education is responsible for around 5,700 buildings across 900 schools, preschools and children's centres. For some older buildings and transportables, the only practical solution would be full replacement or demolition. The replacement cost of transportable buildings alone has been estimated at more than $1 billion by the Department for Education. I note that the honourable member cites Victoria as having removed all asbestos from their schools as a reference point for the introduction of this bill. The information I have been provided is that this commitment, though noble, never came to fruition and the practical realities of the task overwhelm the policy. Lower-risk asbestos in Victorian schools is now managed in largely the same way as in South Australia.

The bill also only compels government schools to remove asbestos, leaving Catholic and independent schools untouched, even though the risks are the same. This creates an inconsistent system where public schools carry the cost and pressures, while non-government schools have no equivalent obligation.

I do thank the member for her advocacy and ambition on the issue. The past weeks have shown us how vigilant we must continue to be to ensure asbestos is treated seriously, managed properly and removed safely wherever necessary. However, for the reasons I have outlined, the government cannot support this bill. The current approach—removing asbestos during planned upgrades and demolitions—will achieve asbestos-free sites over time, safely and responsibly.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:41): I thank the honourable member for putting this bill forward. The opposition will not be supporting this bill. Whilst the intent is important, and I appreciate her putting it forward, our concern is that, by having a very short timeframe of nine years for removing the asbestos, the bill does not focus on the areas where there may be need for some of this infrastructure to be repaired. We know that in many schools the infrastructure is crumbling and falling apart, and I think investment in those areas is extremely important. We want to make sure that the safety of children, students, educators and staff in our schools and preschools is really important. It is something that should be taken very seriously.

We also know that there are schools, like Beachport Primary School, where the ceiling of the reception room has fallen in. This is not acceptable. That is the sort of repair and maintenance that needs to be focused on. We need to make sure that more is being done in that space so that our schools are kept safe, but at this stage we cannot support a bill that mandates complete statewide asbestos removal without a clear plan.

Regarding the costings, I have a lot of concern around the overall costing and assurance that the government would be able to deliver on such a significant plan, which is of concern. From our perspective, schools and families deserve clarity, making sure there is safety when it comes to our schools and making sure that the right focus areas and the schools' facilities are up to scratch and safe. That should be a most important focus. For those reasons, the opposition will not be supporting the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:43): I thank those members of the crossbench who have indicated their support for this bill. I am disappointed but not surprised with the views that have just been expressed. I will be sure to let Mat Werfel, ADSA and AVA know that you do not support their campaign and call to action.

Second reading negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT