Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

This report of the Economics References Committee on non-conforming building products is one of those seminal reports that the Senate has an opportunity to deal with from time to time. I know a great deal of public debate occurs about the role of the Senate. I think there is often undue criticism paid to the way the Senate operates. One of the most important functions the Senate has, and I think the real secret of the Senate's power in this country, is the power of exposure. Senator Ketter, as the chair of this committee, has led it through a daunting series of public hearings and through the examination of submissions from over 160 submitters.

I have been here a few years now and I can say to you that it is rare that you have an opportunity to see evidence presented to a Senate committee from such a diverse group of people in an area of the Australian economy that's often renowned for its division and diversity. But, in this case, what's remarkable is the uniformity of views. As a participant in this inquiry, I have been struck by how broadly based the concerns of the building practitioners have been. Whether it be employer organisations, unions or consumer groups, a very powerful concern has been expressed about the systematic failure of the regulatory regime in this country to deal with fundamental issues of public safety.

The real anxiety that I have here is that there is an opportunity for this parliament to put an end to the buck-passing on what, for some time, has been a litany of abrogations of responsibilities by just about everybody concerned with the building industry. It is a common feature of this industry that someone always has somebody else to blame. The circumstances around the Lacrosse fire in Melbourne highlighted something in this country, whereby a fire started by a cigarette butt spread within 11 minutes across 23 storeys of a residential building. We were incredibly lucky that no-one was killed in that circumstance. The firefighters who witnessed that, men of extraordinary experience—31 years experience—said that was the most devastating fire they've ever witnessed in an urban area. That testimony was repeated many times over by senior firefighters across the country. This is in the circumstance where we saw the recent events in the United Kingdom, where a fire tragically killed 80 people, highlighting once again the use of this plastic-centred aluminium cladding, which essentially explodes.

There have been 19 significant fires like this in multi-storey buildings around the world. In one case in Dubai, a building caught fire twice. There have been a number of fires in Australia, including a couple in Melbourne. According to the evidence, at least 10,000 buildings across the country contain this building material. According to the evidence, we have here a systematic failure as a result of the privatisation and the deregulation of the building industry, which has led to what is now clearly a major problem of public safety in this country. What we have is an abrogation of responsibilities where governments have been, essentially, seeking to refer this to one committee of procrastinators after another so that nothing actually gets dealt with. Senator Ketter has drawn our attention to what's happened in Queensland, and I commend the Queensland government for at least making that effort. They're the only government in the country that have actually made an effort. In the case of Victoria, litigations are continuing about the Lacrosse fire nearly four years after the event.

When you talk to officials about these things, they don't dispute the evidence. It's not as if people are saying, 'No, this is not happening.' They are not saying that there hasn't been widespread document fraud, widespread certification fraud or widespread substitution of products. When you ask officials, for instance, from the Victorian Building Authority, they say, 'Yes, it's true'. They acknowledge it. When you ask, 'How many prosecutions have there been for fraud?' they say, 'We know of one with some evidence.' There's no-one taking action here, so, in the circumstances in Melbourne, it's the residents of the Lacrosse building who are now left responsible for removing this cladding.

This is cladding which was, according to the evidence before the committee, saving $3 a square metre. It's going to cost billions to take this stuff down. That's an extraordinary proposition. Audits have been undertaken across the country and governments all over the country are trying to duck and weave when it comes to how many buildings are involved. There are 2½ thousand, according to a leaked submission, in New South Wales alone. So our recommendations go to some pretty simple propositions here. In the first instance, this is stuff that's so dangerous that it can't be used in low-rise buildings. It's just not justified to be used in low-rise buildings. Everyone acknowledges that it should not be used in high-rise buildings, which it has been. When you ask the simple question, 'How does that occur?' people say, 'It is compliant for low-rise buildings.' It shouldn't be. It should be banned, and that's the recommendation of the committee.

Just like asbestos, this stuff—the plastic cores—is too dangerous to be used for the external cladding of buildings. We are saying that we have to bring public accountability back into the system for public safety in the building industry. There has to be a national licensing authority to secure that. In the medical industry, if a doctor's caught doing malpractice, they lose their licence and are deregistered. This committee's recommending to the parliament that that's one way of bringing back public accountability into the building industry for all building practitioners. We're saying that, if you want to breach the code, there ought to be penalties for breaching the code with regard to Commonwealth buildings.

The Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner that's in place there is an absolute paper tiger. It has no real authority, no real powers and no real resources. It is a complete joke of an office. For Commonwealth-funded buildings, that should change. We should ensure that actions are put in place. The Commonwealth Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science is the responsible minister for the Building Ministers' Forum. He should not only take responsibility for this but also ensure that the supply chain is actually brought back into this. We should ensure that Australian standards and the products of their work—particularly the building codes themselves—are available to the industry, but not at such prohibitive prices as to make them unavailable.

This is an important inquiry that's making recommendations to the parliament which I trust the political parties will take up. It provides an opportunity to restore public confidence and public accountability for public safety and provides an opportunity for this parliament to show real leadership, because clearly this government has failed to do so. The assistant minister's letter to the committee suggesting that it was the parliamentary committee's responsibility to police breaches of the code is a complete joke, and it demonstrates why this government just doesn't understand its own responsibilities to prosecute people who have broken the law. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.