Stirling Griff (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017. For most Australians, our home is the one place where we can seek respite from the troubles of the world, where we can shut the door behind us and rely on those four walls to wrap us around our loved ones and keep them safe. It is a sickening thought that for some people the same place of refuge can be very much a disaster in waiting. Right now there are potentially hundreds and hundreds of buildings around Australia that are at real risk of becoming the next Grenfell Tower or Lacrosse building. But it doesn't have to be. I urge all in this place to support this bill, which responds in part to key recommendations in the interim report on aluminium composite cladding, or ACPs, from the inquiry of the Economic References Committee into non-conforming building products.

This bill seeks to ban the importation of polyethylene-core aluminium composite panels. While there are legitimate uses for PEs and ACPs, such as signage, for instance, the report highlighted the ease with which these products can be used inappropriately, through either inadvertent error or deliberate design. Part of the problem lies with the National Construction Code, which regulates this space. Even those who are familiar with the code struggle to navigate the labyrinth of sometimes contradictory regulations. We know that as a result of this confusion PEs and ACPs are regularly used inappropriately. The code therefore offers little comfort or protection to the Australian public.

There is currently on the market safe flame-retardant cladding that is readily available for use in Australia. This non-combustible honeycomb product costs around $2 to $3 per square metre more than highly combustible PEs and ACPs. This has led some opportunistic and unscrupulous individuals to substitute for the safe cladding the unsafe, flammable cladding in an attempt to shore up their bottom line. These people have made a conscious decision to place profits above people.

Even more worryingly, the committee heard evidence that this sort of substitution is widespread. PEs and ACPs may appear unremarkable and innocuous, and, frankly, as a consumer, it is pretty much impossible to tell the difference between a safe product and one which can set your home alight in mere minutes. You place your trust in the people who build your home or your office block, and yet these products pose a high risk to life and property.

An audit conducted in South Australia found that 77 buildings in the Adelaide CBD alone are suspected to contain the combustible cladding. These buildings are over 25 metres tall and, incredibly, include the Adelaide Oval and the convention centre. The audit also identified the newly built Royal Adelaide Hospital, but the cladding used there appears to be safe and compliant. I hope that the same is true for other buildings, but it does give you pause for thought. When filled to capacity, these buildings hold hundreds, if not thousands, of people. I don't need to spell out the consequences if the worst happened.

When used incorrectly, PEs and ACPs are an enormous fire hazard. Evidence was given during the course of the inquiry 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 now know too well what this type of combustible cladding can do. We have all seen the images of the Grenfell Tower in London. We know the damage that these products cause, and none of us will forget the haunting image of a lone, smouldering, blackened column rising out of the London suburbs. Six months on, the community there is still struggling to cope with both the economic and the emotional losses of that disaster.

It was only through good fortune and the professionalism of firefighters that we did not have a similar catastrophe when Melbourne's Lacrosse building was set ablaze in 2014 after a cigarette butt was left on a balcony. There were 400 people inside, and that inferno spread up 23 storeys in just 11 minutes.

The availability and appropriate use of this cladding are an urgent problem that requires an urgent response, and this bill plays one part in that. There may be those who see a total ban on importation as overkill, but, frankly, there are many safer alternatives to this product. The industry's hands will not be tied; it will just be required to make safer choices. We need to do what we can to safeguard the community against the inappropriate use of flammable ACP cladding by unscrupulous and ignorant builders. One way to do that is to make the product more difficult to access through an importation ban. I urge all senators to back this bill.