In response to recent contamination scares, Australian regulators are redefining what counts as “high risk” for asbestos. Products once considered low risk are now under scrutiny. Testing requirements are tightening. And the assumption that asbestos is a “legacy problem” is being challenged once again.
At the centre of this shift is a series of contamination incidents that exposed a critical gap. Not in legislation, but in detection.
This article explores how those incidents reshaped risk classifications, why existing testing frameworks failed to catch the problem early, and what this means for regulators, importers, and safety professionals moving forward.
It also looks at the growing need for faster, more accessible detection methods, and how emerging technologies are helping bridge the gap between compliance and real-world risk.
When “Low Risk” Isn’t Low Risk
In late 2025, authorities moved to reclassify certain imported materials, including children’s play sand, as “high risk” (1). This followed widespread recalls and school closures after asbestos was detected in products previously allowed to enter the country without mandatory testing (2).
For regulators, the issue was not a lack of rules. Australia has some of the strictest asbestos bans in the world, in place since 2003. The problem was how risk was defined.
Materials like coloured sand had historically been treated as low risk. That classification meant less scrutiny at the border and fewer testing requirements before distribution. But the contamination events revealed a flaw. Risk assessments were based on assumptions about manufacturing processes and supply chains, not direct verification.
When those assumptions failed, asbestos slipped through.
A System Built on Detection—But Not Always Designed for It
Australia’s regulatory framework relies heavily on identifying asbestos before exposure occurs. This typically involves laboratory testing, carried out after samples are collected and sent away for analysis.
While accurate, this approach has limitations.
- Testing is often reactive rather than proactive
- Results can take days to return
- Sampling is selective, not comprehensive
- Suspect materials may already be handled or distributed before confirmation
In the case of the contaminated sand, detection did not occur at the border. It happened later, through testing processes that were never designed to catch every instance.
This is not an isolated issue. The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency continues to report detections in a wide range of imported goods, from construction materials to automotive components (3).
The reality is clear. Regulation can set the rules, but detection determines whether those rules are effective.
Tightening Rules Means Increasing Pressure on Testing
The reclassification of materials as “high risk” is a logical response. It increases accountability at the import stage and reduces reliance on assumptions.
However, it also introduces new challenges.
More products requiring testing means:
- Higher volumes of material needing verification
- Greater pressure on laboratories and compliance teams
- Increased delays in supply chains
- Rising costs for importers and regulators
In short, the system becomes more robust—but also more strained. This is where the conversation begins to shift. Not just toward stricter rules, but toward better tools.
The Case for Faster, On-Site Screening
To close the gap between regulation and reality, detection needs to move closer to the point of risk.
That means identifying asbestos:
- At the border, before products are cleared
- On-site, before materials are handled or installed
- In real time, without waiting for lab results
This is the space where new technologies are making a meaningful impact.
One example is the ASBpro handheld asbestos analyser, developed by PAS Scientific and distributed by Portable Analytical Solutions.
Unlike traditional methods, ASBpro is designed for rapid, on-site identification of asbestos-containing materials.
How ASBpro Addresses the Detection Gap
ASBpro introduces a fundamentally different approach to asbestos testing. Rather than relying on off-site analysis, it allows users to assess materials immediately, at the point of inspection.
Key benefits include:
- Real-time results
Identify asbestos in minutes, not days, reducing delays and uncertainty - On-site testing capability
Perform analysis directly at ports, warehouses, construction sites, or manufacturing facilities - Reduced reliance on lab workflows
Minimise bottlenecks and free up laboratory resources for confirmatory testing where needed - Improved risk management
Make faster decisions before materials are disturbed, distributed, or installed - Portability and ease of use
A handheld format enables use by inspectors and safety officers in the field.
This is not about replacing laboratory testing altogether. It is about strengthening the system by adding a first line of defence. With rapid screening, high-risk materials can be identified earlier, and only confirmed cases need to move through more time-intensive lab processes.
From Reactive to Preventative
Australia’s move to tighten asbestos testing rules reflects a broader shift in thinking. The goal is no longer just to respond to contamination. It is to prevent it from reaching people in the first place.
That requires more than policy. It requires capability.
As the definition of “high risk” expands, so too must the tools used to manage that risk. Technologies like ASBpro support this transition by enabling faster, more accessible detection. They reduce reliance on assumptions and create opportunities for earlier intervention.
In a regulatory environment where the stakes are high and the margin for error is small, that shift matters. Because when it comes to asbestos, the difference between assumption and certainty is everything.
Sources: