Review of issues related to the acquisition and management of container accommodation in the Northern Territory and the management of ACMS on prescribed communities 

I have been asked to include in my review my assessment of the way in which the Department managed issues related to asbestos containing materials (ACMs) found on communities prescribed under the NTER Act 2007.

As far as I have been able to establish, the presence of ACMs on those communities was first reported to the Department in August 2007 in the course of meetings related to the Community Clean Up program.  At that time the issue was characterised as relating to the health and safety of the workmen involved in the program rather than as a community issue. By mid September however the department had commissioned a pilot survey involving five communities to determine the likely extent of ACMs, the condition of the materials, the likely risk, and what, if anything needed to be done about any materials found.  The survey found significant quantities of ACMs and recommended that remediation work be carried out.  The time frames for that work ranged from 'within 12 months' to 'within 36 months'.  As a result of the survey a testing program for the remaining 68 prescribed communities is underway.

Because the health risk from ACMs results from airborne asbestos fibres and is related to the concentration of those fibres and to the frequency and duration of exposure a program of air testing commissioned by the Department is also underway.  To date testing has been carried out on four prescribed communities.  That testing as reported has:

'demonstrated that no measurable levels of airborne asbestos fibres and therefore the conditions assessed do not create any increased risk to health from asbestos fibres on those communities' ¹

The report identifies that even on those communities:

'Asbestos however continues to present a health hazard and should be managed in such a way that is does not become a health risk'

It is proposed that further air testing be carried out on a limited number of communities selected on the basis of the apparent likelihood of risk.

A management strategy based on the results of the testing carried out is being formulated and funding has been sought.  I am informed that that strategy will have the flexibility to respond to any change in circumstance.

Determining the nature and extent of any asbestos problem, the methods to be used in physically dealing with any problem materials and application of those methods are, and will continue to be, matters requiring the involvement of appropriate experts.

In my opinion the actions taken by the department to determine the nature and extent of the hazard and the possible risks to health have been entirely appropriate.  The proposed management strategy for dealing with the hazards identified in my view appropriately reflects the expert advice received to date.

Given some past practices, it is likely that it will be necessary to convince communities and individuals as to the hazards of ACMs and the measures that must be taken to avoid the inherent risks.  I am aware that the Department is taking appropriate action in this regard.

I am also aware that the Department is in dialogue with relevant NT agencies about the management of ACMs.  I am informed that the NT government does not have a comprehensive register of ACMs on communities, although records do exist in relation to Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs.  Records also exist for at least some community schools.

In my opinion, it is highly desirable, if not essential, for the work related to ACMs carried out by the Commonwealth on prescribed communities to be closely coordinated with relevant NT Government authorities.  It may also be prudent for the Commonwealth to at least liaise with relevant state authorities given the very high probability that similar conditions may exist on communities in those states.

Whilst the potential health risks are the most pressing aspect of ACMs other risks are involved in dealing with issues arising from their presence on communities.  Those other potential risks include the risk to local support for the intervention and the risk of a loss of public and political confidence in the management processes.

I have been unable to establish that any comprehensive risk management strategy was developed to deal with the issues arising from the presence of ACMs on communities.

I have commented elsewhere in this Report on what I see as shortcomings in the Departments approach to risk management.  In my opinion those comments are applicable to the issues arising from the approach taken to the management of ACMs.

One such issue is that, having regard to the notoriety of asbestos, the need for an information strategy to address the concerns of stakeholders and the general public should, in my opinion, have been developed.

Clearly the previous Minister was, and the current Minister is, a critical stakeholder.  Despite that I have found no evidence of any general briefing being provided to inform either of them that there was an issue with asbestos until the minute from the Group Manager, Indigenous Remote Services Delivery (IRSD) Group on the 28th May 2008.  That minute was written against the likelihood of publicity about the situation arising from the presence of ACM at Areyonga.

I am aware that as part of the NTER, and in response to a minute from the Group Manager, Indigenous Housing Policy and Programs on 7 September 2007 the then Minister approved funding for a number of tasks including the 'removal of asbestos'.  Although the reference in the minute was general the attachment specifically identified Papunya as the location.

In my opinion the notoriety surrounding asbestos is such that the then Minister should have been fully briefed at the latest as soon as the potential seriousness of the situation was recognised.  On the evidence available to me that would appear to have been at the time the decision was made to undertake the pilot survey, namely September 2007.  The current Minister should have been briefed as soon as practicable on assuming office.

That those briefings did not happen, and that the Secretary was also not made aware of any asbestos issue until at least mid March 2008, and then only in relation to the resultant staffing issue at Areyonga , in my opinion, indicates a general failure to routinely and systematically identify and manage risks.

As noted earlier, the presence of ACMs was first reported in August 2007.  The context in which that was done clearly identified it as an occupational health issue.  Despite that I am informed that the OH&S section was not advised of the issue until March 2008.  My views on the need to review the departments approach to OH&S issues are identified elsewhere in this Report.  In my opinion the management of the ACMs on communities reinforces those views.

In conclusion, I would like again to express my very great appreciation for the willing assistance given by all officers involved in the preparation of this report, and in particular to the invaluable contribution made by Ms Amanda McIntyre.