Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week I was pleased to reintroduce the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019. This bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to expressly ban the importation of polyethylene-core aluminium composite panels.

The bill responds, in part, to a recommendation made by the Economics References Committee in its inquiry into non-conforming building products. Senators would be reminded that that committee straddled the 44th and 45th parliaments. It was initiated by former Senator Xenophon and taken up by former Senators Madigan, Ketter and others in response to the Lacrosse fire. I wish to take this opportunity today to speak further about the building cladding issue, which is unquestionably one of the most serious threats to public safety across Australia. This is an issue that requires urgent attention from federal, state, territory and local governments.

As Senators will recall, this issue first came to attention in this country on 25 November 2014, when the Lacrosse building in Docklands, Melbourne, caught fire. The entire exterior of the building clad in polyethylene core aluminium composite panels allowed the fast-moving fire to race up several floors, vertically up the outside of the building. It was only through great good fortune, and the professionalism and quick actions of the emergency services, that no lives were lost. In fact, I will go back to the testimony that was given by Mr Dalrymple, Acting Deputy Chief Officer, Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board, before the committee. He talked about the fire and said that that fire alone could have 'claimed hundreds of lives if things had turned out a little differently'. He said:

We were probably really lucky that did not happen on that occasion. What we are saying here is that fire safety really should not be a matter of good luck. The fire started on a balcony from an unextinguished cigarette—an innocuous type of thing, you would think. This set fire to the cladding, and the panelling itself allowed the fire to travel the full extent of the building—23 levels in 11 minutes. That is something we have never, really, seen before. We would say this should not have been allowed to happen.

He went on to say:

In 31 years as a firefighter and 20 years as a fire safety specialist I have never seen a fire like this—in my lifetime—and I have made it my business to study fires of this nature, so we can get a better outcome for firefighters in the community. We have grave concerns about the use of non-compliant product and that it may result in disastrous loss of life, and we cannot tell you when the next event is going to happen.

Of Lacrosse, he said:

This is a modern building, constructed within the last five years. It has been a valid assumption, up until now, that newer buildings are relatively safe and probably safer than old ones. From a fire services perspective, right now, I cannot guarantee that and I cannot, categorically, state that that is a true fact.

So here we have someone who has worked in firefighting for decades making a fairly serious statement about the dangers of cladding. I think people understand the danger of this ACP flammable cladding, but they may not understand the severity of it. I wanted to read that to make sure everyone in this chamber understands what we are talking about. As it was, levels 6 to 21 of the building were affected by fire and many more were affected by water damage. Between 450 and 500 people required immediate evacuation and alternative accommodation.

Two-and-a-half years later, in June 2017—and I'm sure people remember this day—fire consumed the Grenfell Tower block in London. Again, flammable cladding fuelled a fast-moving fire, this time leading to a disaster which caused 72 deaths, left more than 70 people injured and required the evacuation of 220 residents. Most recently, on 4 February this year, the Neo 200 apartment tower in Spencer Street, Melbourne, also caught fire. Again, flammable cladding was the cause of the fire moving rapidly, vertically up the outside of the tower. Fortunately, the emergency services were alert to the danger and again moved with great speed to bring the fire under control and avoid fatalities.

No-one should underestimate the danger that continues to be posed by the many hundreds of buildings, many of them multistorey, that are clad in flammable polyethylene aluminium composite panels. Evidence given to the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into non-conforming building products revealed these composite panels are so combustible that, in the event of a fire, one kilogram of polyethylene will release the same amount of energy as 1½ litres of burning petrol. We need to understand that when we put this cladding onto buildings, it is like wrapping them in petrol. Despite this danger, very little has been done in the nearly five years since the Lacrosse tower fire. 'Hurry up and wait' would seem to be a good description, but it's at the expense of people's safety. The federal government needs to act and ban this dangerous product to ensure that the Australian building industry is not detrimentally affected, and Australian homes are safe and fit for occupation.

The inquiry found that there are many places where this material can inadvertently end up on a building. It could be that the material that might be made in a foreign country is falsely certified. It could be that the material that is selected by the architect is wrong. It could be that the builder decides, 'I want to cut some costs here,' and instead of using the non-flammable cladding, they pick up the cheaper, flammable cladding and it ends up going onto a multistorey building—even though it's unlawful on multistorey buildings. By the way, I would point out that there have been some changes made to laws that also prohibit using it on single-storey buildings. Once it makes its way on to these buildings, it's not possible for the building surveyor to somehow determine whether it is flammable or non-flammable. So, in some senses, that's why this bill seeks to ban the import of the material, because there are just too many ways in which this material can make its way onto a building—just too many ways. By banning the material, we will get rid of 90 per cent of the material that comes into the country. I accept that doesn't solve the false certification problem, but we can chip away at that as well.

A number of building audits have been conducted around the country by state governments. An audit conducted by the Victorian government discovered 22 properties are 'at extreme risk of fire' and 500 homes are considered 'at the highest risk of fire'. As a result, the Cladding Safety Victoria agency has been established to oversee the reparation work over the next five years. I take my hat off to the state government for doing this, although I note that the federal government has refused to weigh in and help financially.

An audit has also been done in my home state of South Australia. Disgracefully, the South Australian government has refused to release the list of buildings and homes in the state that contain highly flammable cladding. One of the claims that has been made by the government for not releasing this material is that it would 'result in the use of that information by terrorists'. Of course terrorism is a significant threat, but terrorist related arson events are few and far between. There have been reports of cases of deliberate ignition of fires to advance a political objective. One published security study identified that between 1968 and 2005 only 56 terrorist groups worldwide employed deliberate arson as a tactic. That is fewer than two cases a year worldwide over 30 years, so it's not necessarily the choice of terrorists by any stretch of the imagination. While it can't be dismissed as a potential threat, politically motivated arson doesn't appear to be in the first chapter of jihadist and other terrorist manuals.

Of course the general threat of arson can't be dismissed, but surely the biggest threat comes from the risk of accidental ignition in at-risk buildings where residents are uninformed about the circumstances. Secrecy doesn't help people living in buildings that may be a fire-trap. Earlier this week, the South Australian infrastructure minister, Stephan Knoll, tried to justify the refusal to release information to the public, citing the risk of terrorism. Basically, the South Australian government knows that there is a problem but is hiding behind secrecy.

Secrecy doesn't deal with the problem. I was informed this afternoon by my MLC colleague in South Australia the Hon. Frank Pangallo that he has sought to gain access to a whole range of documents under FOI. The government, once again trying to refuse access to public safety information, simply claimed that the request was too voluminous. I'm happy to report that the budget and finance committee of the South Australian parliament has now ordered the government to hand over all of the documents that had been requested under FOI, because this is such an important safety issue.

The problem we have, and I've talked to many in this place, is that the government suggest that we can't stop the import of this material, because it's used in caravans, signs and so forth. The government say, 'Those industries are important. We need to look after them.' I understand that we need to do that, but there are alternatives. The problem is that the federal government will claim, correctly, that in actual fact the building codes are a state issue. I accept that. They are. But we have a Building Ministers Forum. We have been trying to address this, but it has taken five years—five years since the Lacrosse fire—to do essentially nothing. That's why we now have to seriously consider this measure. There is support building around the country to stop the import of this flammable cladding, because governments have just spun the wheels. They haven't moved on this. Whatever rebuttal comes from the government in this debate, just keep in the back of your mind that nothing is being done—all talk; no walk. That is the problem. Lives are being put at risk because of the inaction of public officials and parliamentarians, and by ministers in particular.

One of the good things that would come from the identification of the buildings, if the South Australian government were to release this public safety information, as they should, is that it would probably prompt people to deal with the issue. I understand that dealing with the issue would be costly, but that's no reason to keep this information secret. It's no reason to keep the people who are occupying or working in these buildings in the dark and ill-informed about the situations that they place themselves in. If particular buildings are identified as being high-risk residences, the occupants should be notified and fully informed. If security is an issue, then governments are duty bound to take the necessary measures to ensure public safety. That should be done through the prompt removal of flammable cladding installations or the installation of improved fire suppression systems or, if necessary, improved building security measures. The veil of official secrecy isn't going to help, especially in the case of South Australia, where one must wonder whether the horse hasn't already bolted.

After all, in October 2017 documents released to the Adelaide Advertiser under FOI revealed that almost 200 buildings in Adelaide's CBD were identified as being of concern and potentially built with aluminium composite panels. Moreover, in February 2018 the Adelaide City Council released a map of those 195 buildings identified as being of concern. If terrorism were the primary problem, there is already enough information in the public domain to help a politically motivated arsonist. At this point the official suppression of details of specific buildings at risk only inhibits efforts to address the reality of this critical safety problem.

As I indicated, there have been some FOIs in relation to this. Maybe—hopefully, through the South Australian parliament and the efforts of my colleague and, indeed, Labor MLC members in South Australia—we may get to see these documents to keep people informed. It's totally unacceptable that the state minister, Minister Knoll, is keeping this information from the public.

But I bring the conversation back to this bill. This bill is necessary because after five years we have been unable to solve a problem, and this problem puts people's lives at risk. We don't know when the next fire will occur, but we can stop this material coming into the country and making its way onto buildings, making them unsafe for Australians, for South Australians, for all of us. We know that some of this cladding has made it onto the Adelaide Convention Centre, so it might not even be Australians; it may well be visitors who we invite here and who should rightfully expect that when they come here they are safe.

It's with that all in mind that I put to this chamber that we do need to act. We do need to look at this bill very seriously because it seems to be the only way in which we'll get proper movement to help solve this problem—certainly moving forward. And so I commend this bill to the Senate.

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

I rise this afternoon to speak in this general business debate on the bill moved by Senator Patrick, the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019. I may disappoint Senator Patrick with some of my comments, but he can take it up with me tomorrow when we're in Melbourne. Australians do deserve peace of mind when they purchase a unit or a building, and the safety and welfare of all Australians is this government's main priority. Indeed, since 2013, when we were elected after the previous Labor government, when you look at the actions of this government, you see they have all been about providing security to Australians and ensuring their safety, whether through ensuring our borders are safe or through making sure that we have an economy that is stable and safe and provides jobs for people.

The problems in the building industry actually are a result of noncompliance due to a lack of enforcement of the National Construction Code, and I'm not falling into the trap in terms of a hospital pass, but they are state and territory government issues. I stand here talking in this debate this afternoon as someone who is a constitutional conservative and a federalist. I know that Queenslanders and senators for Queensland are concerned about how more and more powers are seeping down to Canberra. Under any federal government, regardless of the colour, I am someone who believes that we should be devolving power back to the states and territories.

Senator Watt interjecting—

I will take the interjection from Senator Watt in terms of the Palaszczuk—it should be the Trad Labor government, actually. I don't know where the Deputy Premier of Queensland is at the moment. I think we should put out a search party for her.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

She's probably looking to buy another house!

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

She's probably looking on realestate.com.au at the moment!

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) | Link to this | Hansard source

She's in parliament!

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

Senator Watt may be able to answer this question, if he's going to make a contribution, in terms of whether she's actually listed for sale her property at Woolloongabba that she bought for three-quarters of a million dollars via text message with her husband. I am sure that the Deb Frecklington and Tim Mander government, who will be elected on 31 October, in about 400 days time, will be a government that will stand up for Queensland. They'll be a government that will make sure that, in terms of issues such as this, in Queensland the National Construction Code is something that is enforced.

Going back to my point before Senator Watt rather helpfully interrupted me: it is important that we understand that because the federal government does not have the constitutional power to regulate the built environment—that is a state government responsibility. We instead will work cooperatively with state and territory governments. And, indeed, the Liberal-National coalition government is providing leadership in this space by convening the Building Ministers Forum to facilitate a nationally consistent approach and restore confidence to the building construction sector in Australia. It's very important that, if you are someone who believes, as I do, in devolving power, taking power away from Canberra and giving it back to the states and territories or ensuring that you do not take more power away from the states and territories, you work cooperatively through all three levels of government, because local government also has a role to play here.

We shouldn't forget that the building construction industry is one of the key sectors of the Australian economy. And, sadly, in our home state—and Senator Scarr is here—the aforementioned Labor government, the Palaszczuk-Trad government, just aren't a very good government. They're a terrible government actually. I would be misleading the Senate if I said they weren't a very good government. They are actually a terrible government. Being a proud Queenslander, I don't like it when people tell Queenslanders what to do, and I certainly won't tell New South Wales people or even great senators from the state of South Australia what to do. But, in Queensland, we are being let down by our state Labor government. We are being let down by the leadership, or lack of leadership, they are showing in terms of the economy.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought it was New South Wales who had the spill?

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

Mind you, they are bad—I'm going a bit off piste here at the moment, Senator Patrick—but one of the Victorian state Labor ministers today said they won't be building any dams. I don't know who this minister is, but they're clearly an idiot, and I've said so on my social media. We are in the midst of a devastating drought, and Labor's approach to this is to put their head not in a bucket of water but in a bucket of very dry sand and not deal with the reality of the situation.

Back to my state Labor government and the failure of leadership that they are showing for the construction and building sector: Senator Scarr, being someone who spends a lot of time travelling around rural and regional Queensland, will understand that the lack of leadership in this sector is hurting jobs in Queensland. We have, I think, the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

New taxes.

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

The new taxes are coming in—I think there are five new taxes, or it could be 10 new taxes. With Labor, you can never be sure, because they certainly like to tax everything that moves. With the failure of the state Labor government in Queensland and in the Northern Territory, which I've had a bit to do with over the years, when you speak to those who are involved in the building and construction sector in Darwin and Palmerston, they say they are hurting. They are really hurting—and so are those in Queensland—because of the lack of leadership.

The building and construction sector employs 1.2 million people. That's numerous families, millions of people. Their livelihoods—their ability to put food on the kitchen table, to pay their electricity bills and to put petrol in their car—depend on us having a strong building and construction sector. That's why it's so important we come to issues such as the very important one that Senator Patrick has raised. I commend him for raising this issue, but I don't support the bill, because I'm a federalist and don't like the federal government continuing to stick its nose in areas which are the responsibility of the states and territories.

The best thing that my fellow Queenslanders can do in about 400 days time is elect the Liberal-National Party into power in Queensland; they will be able to deal with this issue. One of the tragedies in my home state of Queensland is that we've got so much potential—with all due respect to all the other senators in the chamber, apart from Senator Scarr, we are the best state—except, essentially, over the last 30 years—

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, on a point of order?

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator is misleading the chamber. South Australia is clearly the better state!

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not a point of order, Senator Patrick.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | 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.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I also rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019, and I extend my support to Senator Patrick for the worthy endeavour of reintroducing this bill to the Senate and for his commitment to the safety of consumers in these houses and buildings—and, indeed, of workers. To Senator McGrath, I say: that was a load of rubbish. There's clearly a strong role for the Commonwealth in relation to these building products, and it's a responsibility that the Commonwealth government should live up to. If you won't do the job, then opposition senators are very pleased to join with Senator Patrick in pursuing this issue. I hope this legislation passes this place, but, clearly, we will always want it to pass in the other place, so we really do hope that government senators start to see their responsibilities more clearly in this regard.

Back in 2019, the economics committee of the Senate recommended the Australian government implement a total ban on the importation, sale and use of polyethylene core aluminium composite panels as a matter of urgency. During those hearings, stakeholders expressed support for a ban. These people included unions, building industry organisations and the Victorian Building Authority. We know that the government responded to that report and did not support that particular recommendation, which is of great concern.

This bill intends to do that job, to make up for that lack of action by government, with a new provision that explicitly bans the importation of polyethylene-core aluminium composite panels into Australia. And if the Customs Act is not the Commonwealth's responsibility, then what are we doing here at all? There is clearly a role for the Commonwealth in banning the importation of unsafe products, as it regularly and often does on many fronts. Asbestos is a building material, and we don't rely on the states to enforce a ban on asbestos; we ban its importation ourselves. Indeed, we have to work quite hard to keep asbestos out of our building products. Customs has a role in inspecting building materials, to audit them to make sure there is no asbestos in what comes in. But we know that asbestos frequently ends up in Australian building products and that it's picked up not only by Customs but also by state authorities when, rightly, they do their job in inspections. So the enforcement of these issues is not just a state responsibility; it's clearly also a Commonwealth responsibility.

It is the responsibility of all senators in this place to ensure that we legislate in the interests of public safety. It's very disappointing that a spokesman for Minister Andrews told Guardian Australia:

… a ban on aluminium composite cladding was rejected at the building ministers' forum in February because states agreed "that banning a legitimate product at the border is neither effective nor practical".

This is disappointing, because not only was Minister Andrews obfuscating her responsibilities and deflecting them to the states but, strangely enough, the minister's comments are actually a direct contradiction of the communique from that very meeting. According to the communique:

Ministers agreed in principle to a national ban …

Those two statements are chalk and cheese. Minister Andrews is clutching at straws, trying to find statements to justify her position. She shouldn't be making stuff up, essentially, to justify her position in public debate, but that's what she has done.

It is indeed the responsibility of government, both state and Commonwealth, to ensure the safety of Australians. This government and this minister must ensure the safety of Australians now and accept that the Commonwealth can and should make a difference here in the interests of safety. Customs is under the control of, and under the responsibility of, the Commonwealth government. If the government would like to push those responsibilities back onto the states then we might as well not be here at all as a federation—the federation the government so strongly supports.

In 2018, when we debated this bill as it was originally introduced in 2017, Senators Hume and Duniam rejected the import ban. We must police these products that have the potential to cause harm or injury, or to place people in catastrophic danger. These cheap and underregulated products are placing a strain on our manufacturers. Manufacturing is my shadow portfolio, and manufacturers have told me very clearly that they can't compete with the influx of cheaper products because they won't stoop to manufacturing products that they know are unsafe and that don't meet our standards.

We're seeing builders bidding for commissions who are being undercut by builders using lower quality and unsafe products. It happens all the time. We could give a real boost to jobs in Australia by supporting this legislation. It's not a matter of saying that this is just an extra cost to the Australian public. We can't actually put a price on this kind of safety. International competition in the importation of products is really important in making sure we're competitive, but the products have to be safe and they have to meet our standards.

Currently, the National Construction Code considers polyethylene aluminium composite panels to be safe for use in buildings of up to two storeys. It's important to note at this point that we have exceptional building standards. We don't usually see the kinds of disasters that we see in other parts of the world. However, if I were living in a building that had these panels on it, whether it was a 10-storey building or a two-storey building, I would prefer to know that we were doing everything we could to mitigate the risk of tragedies where people are trapped in their houses and can't be saved.

There are thousands of cases around the country where the National Construction Code, in relation to polyethylene aluminium composite panels, has not been adhered to in the proper manner, and we know we have to intervene to ensure public safety. It is going to mean the retrofitting of buildings all over the country. The Victorian Cladding Taskforce has conducted 2,200 inspections. They found inadequate compliance and enforcement, competitive commercial pressures which incentivised the taking of shortcuts, and the substitution of noncompliant products between the approval phase and the construction phase.

I want to highlight to the chamber today that these issues of compliance arise with not just cladding but also fire safety. A few weeks ago, in Victoria, I met with a manufacturing company who manufacture lighting safety systems for apartment buildings. They decried the fact that they'd come across cases of, frankly, inspectors taking shortcuts and signing things off because they had a convenient relationship with the builder, who was paying them to come and do the inspection. Their bread was buttered on the side of being asked to come and do the inspection. We have to find better ways of paying for inspections so that there is not a cosy deal between the inspector and the construction company. It's undermining public safety in our nation, including in relation to a whole range of safety standards in our buildings, not just for cladding but also for fire safety lighting. You also find, for example, instances where the noise barriers between apartments—the insulation—have not been built to the specified standard, which affects people's quality of life. That is simply not on in Australia, where people, when they pay good money for the dwellings they buy, expect to get what they paid for and what is in the Australian building standards.

As with the many good things the Victorian government have done, in this case they've created a $600 million fund to rectify the issues in 500 buildings identified by the audit. The fund is partly funded by a contribution from developers, but I'm disappointed that the federal government has not made a contribution. Again I say to the government: we must intervene to ensure the safety of the public.

I know the government went to the election with no plan for jobs and no plan for the economy, but I do hope that you have a plan for public safety. We went to the election with a policy to ban the import of polyethylene aluminium composite panels, and in our view this is the responsible thing to do. Nobody in this place wants to see the devastation of London's Grenfell Tower disaster repeated anywhere here in our nation. Sixty-two people lost their lives. Frankly, I wish I could say to this chamber that we haven't come close—that we were better than that—but the Melbourne apartment complex on Spencer Street that caught fire early this year caught the attention of Australians, who may well have already been rightly concerned about the use of these products in our buildings. It should serve as a strong warning to the government of just how important it is that they take the responsibility that they have for building safety and the safety of the public seriously.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019. The bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to expressly ban the importation of polyethylene aluminium composite panels, which are a type of flammable cladding. I support the comments by Senator Patrick and Senator Pratt with regards to banning this type of cladding.

As we've heard, the Senate Economics References Committee conducted a detailed inquiry into non-conforming building products in 2016, and the report made a number of very strong recommendations. In 2017, the committee called on the Australian government to implement a total ban on the importation, sale and use of polyethylene core aluminium composite panels as a matter of urgency, yet the government did nothing, and it has been close to two years now. The flammable cladding problem has the potential to cause tremendous harm and loss of life. We know that that is exactly what happened in the Grenfell Tower disaster in London in 2017, where flammable cladding helped spread the devastating fires. The tragedy made news all over the world, of course, and it had profound and devastating impacts on the lives of so many people. But three years before that, in 2014, the Lacrosse building in Melbourne went up in flames. This was also a residential building with people living in it at that time. The fire started with someone smoking a cigarette on their balcony. That is how flammable the cladding in question is.

The fires in the Lacrosse building, Grenfell Tower and other high-rise buildings in Australia and internationally which have been linked to flammable external cladding highlight a wide range of issues. The Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade concluded in their investigation of the Lacrosse fire that the rapid vertical spread of the fire was directly associated with the external cladding. Their report said:

Had the external wall cladding been of a non-combustible type, the likelihood of fire spread beyond the level of ignition would have been greatly reduced.

Mr Adam Dalrymple, the fire safety director of Melbourne's Metropolitan Fire Brigade, told the Senate inquiry when providing evidence about the Lacrosse fire that the flammable cladding allowed the fire to travel the full extent of the building—23 levels in 11 minutes.

The states of New South Wales and Queensland have both called on the federal government to institute a ban on the import of these dangerous flammable cladding materials, but nothing has eventuated. In my home state of New South Wales, my Greens colleague in the upper house of NSW parliament David Shoebridge has been working to expose the lack of action on this issue. They recently found out, through secret documents obtained by the Greens in New South Wales, that hundreds of buildings in the city of Sydney are at risk from flammable cladding. The list includes prominent high-rise buildings, residential apartments, a childcare centre and student housing. This is a serious issue of public safety, and it has been described as a ticking time bomb. This is really a combustible cladding crisis.

We know that there is a problem with the Building Code of Australia and its compliance, and, as a civil engineer, I know that quite well. A Four Corners investigation revealed that some international manufacturers and their Australian suppliers were aware of the risks associated with using PE cladding on high-rise buildings, but they continued to import it because Australia's lax and ambiguous building standards allowed them to. Other countries have instituted a ban on the import of flammable cladding. Of course, state and federal governments need to take responsibility, and, more importantly, they need to take action to fix this. Australia can, and should, do this. The risk of not taking action is too grave. The Greens support this bill.

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate will now adjourn so that senators can attend the presentation of the address-in-reply at Government House.

Senate adjourned at 16 : 30