James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, I think tomorrow in Melbourne could be a long day if you and I are not careful—for reasons that we privately know!

For effectively 25 of the last 30 years—and it's a serious point—Labor have been in power. Look at Queensland. It's such a great state, but it could be so much better. It's been let down by poor political leadership. I think that this is something that an LNP government would be far better at handling at a state level than the federal government would through increasing its power.

The National Construction Code has always restricted the use of combustible cladding in high-rise buildings. Industry leaders have agreed that the problem is not the cladding but the way it has been applied. My fear, and the fear of the Liberal-National government, is that an import ban would have significant unintended consequences for Australian businesses that use these panels for legitimate and safe purposes such as signage, wrapping of ATMs, road barriers and interior design. A ban would put the sign-manufacturing and caravan-manufacturing industries in jeopardy, both of which rely on this product and are worth almost half a billion dollars a year to the economy. Bringing in a ban would have unintended consequences for the 14,000 Australians who work in the 770 businesses in those particular spaces that I've just mentioned, and they'll face extreme uncertainty if a ban is put in place.

Taken on board with the poor record of state and territory governments—particularly in Queensland and the Northern Territory—and whether the broader building construction sector is in a downturn at the moment, the last thing I would want to do is support something that, despite the best intentions of the mover of this bill, could have severe applications for employment and for businesses in my home state. Inspection would require the deployment of hundreds of Australian Border Force officers. Enforcing a ban would be incredibly costly and is unnecessary. I think the best way to deal with this issue—in terms of the round table and those state ministers who have responsibility for this space—is to make sure that the state ministers are doing their jobs rather than have the federal government pass another piece of legislation, another bit of effective regulation or another bit of control to have a more creeping approach to growing the power here in Canberra at the expense of the states and territories. I should mention, though, that banning aluminium composite panels at the border was rejected, including by Labor state ministers, at the Building Ministers Forum in February. So it is something that I think should have a bottom-up approach rather than the top-down approach.

I should stress that, while the government is extremely concerned for the residents and people affected by these building facilities, the cost burden should not be borne by the taxpayer. Indeed, Daniel Andrews—that noted statesman from Victoria!—was very quick out of the gates, as Labor premiers can be, to put his hand out, asking for hundreds of millions of dollars to help rectify the issue in Victoria. This is a problem, this is an issue, but it is a problem that should be dealt with by the states and territories. In terms of any rectification repairs, they should be undertaken by the states and territories and within their budget processes. They should not be putting out their hand and saying to the federal government, as states and territories like to do, 'Well, come on, pay for it.' Sometimes states and territories do act like unwieldy teenagers—always wanting more but failing to do the necessary work around the home. This particular burden should fall back—and rightly so, as per our Constitution and how we are governed as a federation—to the states and territories.

My understanding is that the governments have acknowledged that they will take responsibility for their individual paths to remediation and rectification. While they should certainly work together as a roundtable, I think it is appropriate that states and territories, considering the different circumstances within our federation, might take slightly different approaches. That's the good thing about a federation. We can have competitive federalism. One size does not necessarily fit all, and what can work in Melbourne may not necessarily work in Cairns or Mackay. So the Liberal-National coalition government here has strongly encouraged the states and territories to work cooperatively to rectify noncompliant buildings. We believe that cooperation between the states and territories, the sharing of best practice and seeing what one state or territory is doing, and thinking, 'Well, that might be a better way than what we're doing,' will help reduce confusion and help ease the financial pressures of rectification for property owners.

This issue does fall squarely within the remit of states and territories. It is not something the federal government, from a legislative or regulatory perspective, should be involved with. We will continue to work together with the states and territories as a united federation to bring together solutions on this quite vexed issue. With that, I conclude my remarks.