Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Hansard source

Labor supports the principles behind this Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017 of Senator Patrick's—but why wouldn't you? It's clearly an appropriate response to the Senate committee inquiry which, under the very strong leadership of my colleague Senator Ketter here, dealt with the evidence and was able to demonstrate comprehensively just why it was so necessary for the Commonwealth to respond. Senator Hume said that's not necessary, because we have the National Construction Code.

The National Construction Code is grossly inadequate. It is not fit for purpose. Anyone that had heard the evidence or attended the meetings—which Senator Hume, unfortunately, did not—or the department, if it had studied the evidence, would have known that. I presume the department provides advice to the parliamentary secretary, now the minister, in regard to these matters. They would have heard evidence that the National Construction Code has so many holes in it these days that you could fly a squadron of F-18s through it. I say that in deference to Acting Deputy President Fawcett here. There is no question now that the National Construction Code is no longer fit for purpose.

The evidence I cite is from the general manager of the Australian Building Codes Board, Neil Savery, who observed that the industry had changed dramatically in recent decades, with deregulation and globalisation making it harder to ensure that buildings were built to certain standards. Mr Savery noted that a sophisticated performance based code of regulation was introduced in the early 1990s, which needed highly qualified people to understand how it worked. He said that governments had run the building certifications but then they had been privatised; the industry had undergone a process of deregulation; and there had been example after example of reductions in the level of public scrutiny, of public accountability, for the building industry as a result of reductions, for instance, in mandatory inspections.

So we now have a situation under the Building Code—and we call this 'innovation' in some quarters—where this industry is able to unilaterally change the arrangements entered into, where a builder-developer could have alternative standards put forward on the basis that they were deemed to be satisfactory, that they were claimed to be performance based provisions under the code and that they were said to be equivalent to these comprehensive, sophisticated performance based regulations. As a consequence, design features that were allegedly compliant with the code were being implemented and, of course, were not fit for purpose. The persons that were responsible for claiming and certifying that these buildings were in fact compliant were the same people who were being paid by those developers under this privatised deregulated system, to the point where we were not to know whether or not any document signed reflected the true situation of the state of the building.

The Senate committee heard evidence of the systematic failure—systematic failure—of the regulatory regime in this country: widespread document fraud, product substitution, corruption and wilful ignorance. The process of deregulation had led to the inertia of public authorities across this country, and, when the response came in, it was characterised by buck-passing and turning a blind eye to these corrupt practices. This was the hallmark of the new age of deregulation. What a triumph! What a triumph for neoliberalism. The public safety of this country had been put at risk; tens of thousands of buildings have been put up in this country, clad in this highly dangerous material. For what? For profit and greed. What was the evidence put to the committee? The net advantage was $8 per square metre. That was the cost saving.

We were told that people who raised concerns about this were fearmongering. Internationally, we've seen the experience in the United Kingdom. We've seen it in Dubai, where the Torch Tower, as it's called, has actually caught fire twice. It's a modern building, and it caught fire twice. In Australia, we have seen 14 cases of fires. We've seen it with the Lacrosse building in Melbourne—a modern building. We've seen many other buildings that have caught fire. We've seen senior fire officer after senior fire officer draw to our attention that the question of whether or not we'll have a loss of life here is a question of good luck, not good management. So, in the name of deregulation, in the name of innovation, we're now told that public safety can be put at risk, that that is all right and that business as usual should follow.

In fact, what we've got is the government blathering about these circumstances, saying, 'Oh, well, this couldn't happen here.' What was the evidence before the Senate committee? It was not just that there had been fires but, we're told: 'We've got this magnificent Building Code, which, of course, provides us with the security we need.' We've got sprinkler systems in this country, we're told, unlike in the United Kingdom.

The Senate was told by senior fire officers in this country, not by some wide-eyed bolshevik but by senior fire officers, that an audit was undertaken in 2014 of 71 five-star hotels in the city of Brisbane in preparation for the G20—after all, we were only hosting the world leaders, including the President of the United States and the President of the Russian Federation. What was found in those 71 five-star hotels in regard to their sprinkler systems? Sixty-eight of the 71 failed the audit. We were told that under the present Building Code if a proprietor doesn't like the results that he's getting from a surveyor, he gets in another surveyor who'll give him the results that he wants. After all, he's paying for it. He'll get the results he wants or he'll go to another surveyor until he does.

We were told that concerns we were raising in these matters were of no consequence, that we were fearmongering: 'There's no problem here.' It wasn't a question about the use of this product. After all, people use it for signs. How pathetic. There's no other product we can use for signage in this country that's not dangerous? We were told, 'Oh, well, we can't guarantee what it will be used for.' That's exactly the reason why you should ban this material. Is there any doubt about how flammable this material is? The CSIRO, when it undertook its test, had to stop the test because it was destroying their equipment because it was so flammable, so dangerous.

It isn't just a question of a few rogues. When the audits were done—for instance, in the state of Victoria—they found, I think, 1,400 buildings in the state of Victoria with this cladding on them, including the building of the department in Victoria that actually issues the permits, the department of planning, which is covered in this stuff. What did they find among the 1,400 buildings that they've acknowledged? They found the failings:

… weren't merely administrative or paper based problems. There were significant public safety issues, which are symptomatic of broader non-compliance across a range of areas within the industry.

They said there were three factors, predominantly:

… the supply and marketing of inappropriate building materials, a poor culture of compliance … and the failure of the regulatory system to deal with these issues.

The task force said there was:

there were—

and there is—

Hence why I say there are claims that they can find alternatives, such as 'deemed to satisfy' under the Building Code and they can have a so-called performance based model under the Building Code to allow this stuff to be put on buildings, despite the claims that there will be an absolute prohibition on this product being put on buildings. If there is such an absolute prohibition, how is it that there are so many thousands of buildings in this country clad in this material?

The report went on to say that there was:

… substitution of non-compliant products between the approval phase and the construction phase …

As I said, there is widespread fraud and widespread criminal behaviour in the Australian building industry.

Now, that's why we in the Labor Party have said: 'We can't muck around with this stuff. It's too serious. Public safety is a fundamental responsibility of the state.' There is no excuse here, no excuse whatsoever. No number of government committees or senior officers groups, no amount of fudging and no amount of turning a blind eye will take away the fundamental responsibility of the state for public safety. The government's role in public safety is critical. The government has an obligation; after all, it is the National Construction Code. Buck-passing won't cut it anymore. It's no good saying: 'Oh, it's someone else's responsibility. Oh, it's the state's responsibility. Oh, it's the local government's responsibility. Oh, it's the surveyor's responsibility. Oh, it's the architect's responsibility. Oh, it's the builder's responsibility.' That's why we in the Labor Party say that there should be a total ban on the importation, sale and use of aluminium panels with a polyethylene core.

But we also say this: to put accountability back in the system there has to be a national licensing scheme for all building practitioners. We've actually got to make people accountable for what goes into the building on the building site itself and, if people don't comply, they should lose their licences. What do we say to a medical practitioner who commits an offence? We say, 'We'll take away your licence.' Why shouldn't it be the case in the building industry? We say there should be strong penalties—not this tap on the wrist and not yet another example of: 'Oh, dear, dear, dear, you've been a shocking boy or girl. You're in breach of the national code.' We say there should be strong penalties for practitioners or firms who breach the National Construction Code.

We say also, though, that this idea that the junior minister—in this case, Minister Laundy—chairs the Building Ministers' Forum is a joke. What a joke! He actually wrote to the Senate committee and said that the Senate committee should be doing the enforcement of the building code. He has such a poor understanding of his responsibilities that he doesn't understand the difference between the legislative role of government, the responsibilities of government and, of course, the parliament. Of course, what is he? He's the minister for what? I just want to get his title here. Where is his title now? He is the minister for small and family business and he's the minister for workplace relations. Oh, and he's the minister for deregulation. He's the minister who has responsibilities for the very problem that caused this issue: deregulation! He has a huge interest in the re-regulation of the building industry, hasn't he? Given his public statements he's got a real understanding. How pitiful!

This is a government whose reshuffle before Christmas left us with no science minister, no industry minister and, of course, no building minister, because this is not the responsibility for the Minister for Small and Family Business, Workplace Relations and Deregulation. Is there any reason why anyone in the building industry would take this government seriously, given these circumstances?

The real point that does come to mind here, and what we're finding right across the states, is that the Senior Officers' Group has made some interesting recommendations. They've had a mirror, they've looked into it and what have they come up with? Oh, a website! A website: what devastation they will wreak across the building industry with a website!

Just look at their report—'Oh, we'll have another report.' This has all the hallmarks of Yes, Minister. People were burnt to death in England. There are fires all over the world, including in this country. We have a building industry that is rife with corruption, document fraud, product substitution and wilful ignorance, and what does this government do? It comes up with a website. The crooks and the shonks in the building industry will be shaking in their boots at the thought of a website!

According to the senior officers' report, we are going to have another look at the 'legislative roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth, states and the territories' and we are going to identify 'gaps and weaknesses that impact on actions' in relation to nonconforming building products. Well, well, well, what decisive action! What decisive action from the junior minister.

What we have here is a government that doesn't understand its responsibilities, that doesn't understand that it has a serious problem. We know that the people who actually live in these buildings are demanding action. In the majority of cases it is the owners—not the builders, not the developers, not the surveyors and not the suppliers—are the ones who will now have responsibility for rectifying these unsafe buildings. Buildings that were put up for $8 a square metre are now going to be fitted up at a cost of many billions of dollars.

There has to be a better system put in place to ensure that defective buildings are dealt with swiftly when issues arise. We ought to make sure that as a matter of public safety no more of these buildings are in fact put up. That's our responsibility as a national parliament. There is no excuse for a national government not to act. It is simply pathetic for the government to claim, yet again, 'We're going to have another committee look into this.' In these circumstances, we simply can't tolerate more of this failure. (Time expired)