The term ACM, short for asbestos-containing material, appears throughout Australian work health and safety legislation, yet many persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) and company directors remain unsure what the term actually encompasses. This uncertainty is not trivial. Under the Work Health and Safety Act and its associated regulations, both the PCBU and its officers have positive duties to identify and manage asbestos. Misunderstanding the scope of ACM can create compliance gaps with legal and human consequences.
This article sets out a working definition of ACM and examines common mistakes PCBUs and directors make when approaching their obligations.
Defining ACM
Asbestos-containing material refers to any material or thing that, as part of its design, contains asbestos. This is a broader category than many assume. It includes not only insulation and lagging, which are widely recognised as asbestos risks, but also fibro cement sheeting, vinyl floor tiles, roofing materials, textured paint coatings, gaskets, and a range of other building products manufactured before the staged prohibition of asbestos in Australia, which was completed nationally in 2003.
ACM is typically classified into two categories. Bonded ACM, sometimes referred to as non-friable asbestos, has the asbestos fibres firmly bound within a matrix such as cement, and generally poses a lower risk of fibre release unless disturbed, damaged, or deteriorated. Friable ACM, by contrast, can be crumbled or reduced to powder by hand pressure when dry, and presents a considerably higher risk of airborne fibre release. This distinction matters because it informs the risk assessment, the management approach, and the level of control required under the regulations.
Common Mistake One: Treating Visual Asbestos Inspection as Sufficient
A common error is assuming that a competent-looking visual inspection is enough to determine whether a material contains asbestos. In practice, appearance alone cannot reliably identify ACM. Many asbestos cement products are visually indistinguishable from non-asbestos alternatives that replaced them after the ban. Confirmation requires either documented evidence of the material’s composition, such as manufacturer records predating the relevant era, or laboratory analysis of a sample collected under recognised sampling protocols. PCBUs who rely on assumptions rather than verification expose themselves to significant compliance risk.
Common Mistake Two: Equating an Asbestos Register with an Asbestos-Free Certification
Some property owners and directors mistakenly believe that having an asbestos register, or the absence of any recorded ACM within it, amounts to certification that the premises are asbestos-free. An asbestos register records identified or assumed ACM at a point in time. It is not, and cannot be, a guarantee that no further ACM will be discovered, particularly in older buildings where materials may be concealed within wall cavities, subfloors, or roof spaces that were not accessible during the original assessment. Reliance on an outdated or incomplete register without periodic review is a recurring source of non-compliance.
Common Mistake Three: Failing to Update Asbestos Records Following Renovation or Demolition Works
Buildings are not static. Renovation, refurbishment, and partial demolition works frequently expose materials that were not visible, and therefore not assessed, at the time the original register was compiled. A common failing among PCBUs is proceeding with such works without commissioning a refurbishment or demolition asbestos survey beforehand, and subsequently failing to update the asbestos register once new information comes to light. This omission undermines the register’s purpose as a live document intended to inform anyone who may disturb the building fabric.
Common Mistake Four: Delegating Without Verifying Competency
Directors and senior officers often delegate day-to-day asbestos management to facilities staff or external contractors. Delegation itself is not the problem. The mistake lies in delegating without exercising the due diligence required to verify that the person or organisation receiving the responsibility is appropriately licensed, competent, and equipped to carry it out. Section 27 of the Work Health and Safety Act imposes a personal duty on officers to take reasonable steps to ensure that the PCBU has and uses appropriate resources and processes to manage risks, including asbestos risks. This duty cannot be discharged by delegation alone.
A clear, accurate understanding of what constitutes ACM underpins all subsequent compliance activity. PCBUs and directors who proceed on the basis of assumption, outdated documentation, or unverified delegation place themselves, their workers, and members of the public at avoidable risk. Engaging a suitably licensed assessor to conduct or review ACM identification within a property remains the most reliable way to establish a defensible compliance position.
Global Asbestos Audits supports PCBUs and directors throughout Australia, ensuring compliance and safety.