Indoor air quality is a most significant environmental issue that has not been seriously addressed in this country. Unhealthy indoor air is costing the Australian community an estimated $12 billion a year. Australia is failing its responsibilities of a 'duty of care' to protect the community in the environment where we spend most of our time.

Resolution of the issue requires assessment of the problem, the setting of standards, formation of a central responsibility for indoor air, and initiation of actions to improve air quality.

Though further assessment will be needed to better define the problem, the facts before us already show:

• we spend up to 90 percent of our time indoors
• while on the one hand, national enforceable standards (NEPMs) are rarely exceeded outdoors, on many days every year millions of people inhale air in excess of air quality standards or goals while indoors
• the indoor air pollutants that often exceed acceptable levels include nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particles, formaldehyde, environmental tobacco smoke, and house dust mites
• in 2000 there were five fatalities from carbon monoxide poisoning in dwellings in Victoria alone, and by calculation the health of millions of people is being impaired by indoor air pollution.

Australia has national enforceable standards for ambient air (NEPMs), where people spend only around 10 percent of their time, but it has only non-enforceable interim guidelines for some indoor air pollutants. There is a very much wider range of pollutants indoors that are of concern when compared to outdoors. Ott and Roberts stated in Scientific American (February 1998) that 'Of the hundreds of air pollutants covered by US laws, only ozone and sulfur dioxide remain more prevalent outdoors'. It is imperative that national standards are set for indoor air quality in the very near future so the extent of indoor pollution can be fully established.

A critical factor that has permitted the poor condition of indoor air to deteriorate to its present state is the lack of government ownership of this environment. In the case of outdoor air, the state governments have passed legislation that is enforced by regulation. Fines of up to $1 million can be imposed for infringements that result in unhealthy air. The environment ministers in the states and the Commonwealth have formed a partnership to ensure everyone in the community has access to clean air in the ambient environment. However, in the indoor environment there is only a fragmented interest spread amongst departments of public health, environment, building, work safety, and so on. This has resulted in sporadic involvement, usually by issuing information brochures on isolated issues such as unflued gas heaters or passive smoking. Environment Australia has funded some research studies on indoor air. Although well over 15 years have passed since the first major study revealed very serious air pollution levels in homes, hospitals, schools and caravans, the community remains uneducated and the government largely unmoved.

It seems astonishing that certain environmental programs are being put in place without full consideration of the total exposure of the population to air pollutants. This is exemplified in the strong government program associated with the construction of new dwellings and commercial buildings to conserve energy, and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, without due consideration of the effects on the indoor environment, this can result in modern building designs that are reducing ventilation and thus potentially causing a very serious decline in the quality of indoor air and the health of the occupants.

The immediate steps required to address the issue of indoor air pollution are to:

• establish a national body (linked or similar to the National Environment Protection Council, or NEPC) responsible for indoor air
• establish indoor standards of air quality for the most common and serious pollutants
• collate existing measured indoor air pollution levels into a national database
• commence studies in areas where insufficient data are available
• establish programs that will address the most serious problems
• commence a wide-ranging and comprehensive public education program.