Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

The Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017 responds in part to a recommendation made by the Senate Economics References Committee's inquiry into the effects of non-conforming building products on Australian building and construction. This bill was sponsored by former Senator Xenophon and introduced into the Senate by former Senator Kakoschke-Moore in September last year. I was heavily involved in the Senate inquiry as an adviser to the former Senator Xenophon and I'm pleased that I am in a position to continue advocating on the issue, which affects people right across the country. The bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to expressly ban the importation of polyethylene-core aluminium composite panels.

I will say at the outset that I acknowledge that this bill is not a silver bullet. Banning PE ACP may appear to be a knee-jerk reaction, but the risks are just too high. The use of non-conforming building products in the building and construction industry was the subject of a Senate inquiry which began in June 2015. The Senate Standing Committee on Economics has tabled three interim reports, with this bill responding to recommendation 1 of the second interim report, which was tabled on 6 September last year. At page 10 the report states the following in relation to PE ACP:

The committee understands that under the NCC in its current form, there are compliant uses for PE core ACPs in low-rise buildings, as well as pathways through performance-based solutions to allow the use of PE core ACPs in high-rise buildings. The committee also understands that the signage industry uses PE core ACPs.

In light of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy, the committee does not consider there to be any legitimate use of PE core ACPs on any building type. The committee believes that as there are safe non-flammable and fire retardant alternatives available there is no place for PE core ACPs in the Australian market. While Australian Border Force and suppliers of ACM are currently unable to determine whether an imported building product will be used in a compliant manner, the committee believes a ban on importation should be placed on all PE core ACPs. In addition, the sale and use of PE core ACPs should be banned domestically.

The cladding issue is a most serious public safety issue that requires urgent attention. The issue was brought to the public's attention in November 2014 when the Lacrosse building in Docklands in Melbourne caught fire. Since that time, governments, both federal and state, have failed to respond adequately. The Lacrosse incident was the trigger for the Senate inquiry. The Lacrosse apartment building in Docklands had aluminium cladding fixed to its exterior. Flames raced up several floors and it was only through sheer luck that no lives were lost. Builders who consciously chose to cut costs by using non-compliant panels saved only about $3 per square metre, putting profit ahead of lives. Australian fire safety engineer Dr Tony Enright stated on an ABC Four Corners program examining PE cladding:

A kilogram of polyethylene will release the same amount of energy as a kilogram of petrol, and it gets worse than that because polyethylene is denser than petrol too, so that's about, a kilogram of polyethylene is like about one and a bit, one and a half litres of petrol. If you look at a one metre by one metre square section [of PE core ACP cladding] that will have about three kilograms, the equivalent of about five litres of petrol.

He talked about, basically, wrapping buildings in petrol.

Unless the states and territories act with a great sense of urgency, the only way is to legislate to stop bringing this potentially lethal product into the country. We cannot, under any circumstances, bear the tragedy that occurred in London with the Grenfell Tower tragedy. We must prevent any risk of that happening here. There needs to be urgent action from the Commonwealth and states to complete audits of all suspect buildings and houses so that remediation can be carried out and people can work and live safely in them.

The Property Council of Australia has publicly supported the ban on PE cladding, stating that although it was a complex issue:

… we share the same desire as government to prioritise public safety in light of valid concerns about the use of PE cladding.

In October last year, as a result of the SA state government's cladding audit, almost 200 buildings in Adelaide's CBD were identified as being of concern and potentially built with composite panels. The Advertiser revealed, through documents obtained under FOI:

… 140 buildings had facades that are possibly clad with ACP cladding, 45 buildings with entry canopies that are possibly clad, and 10 buildings under construction that have indications of ACP cladding.

Just five days ago The Advertiser reported that city buildings greater than 25 metres tall are suspected to contain potentially flammable cladding. Identified buildings that were reported as needing further investigation include the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, the Adelaide Oval, the Adelaide Convention Centre, the Riverside office building and the Colonel Light Centre building.

During phase 1 of the South Australian audit, 20 councils self-reported buildings that warranted further consideration and investigation, including 77 in the city council area, seven in Unley, five in Murray Bridge, three in Campbelltown and one each in Gawler, Port Lincoln and Kangaroo Island.

It is a simple test to identify whether cladding contains the cheap, flammable polyethylene or the slightly more expensive version treated with fire retardant. The Senate inquiry heard disturbing evidence that dangerous and non-compliant goods were coming into the country undetected and, in some cases, with false or forged compliance documents. Whilst the Australian Border Force and suppliers of aluminium composite materials are currently unable to determine whether an imported building product will be used in a compliant manner, a ban on importation is necessary to prevent any disasters such as the Grenfell Tower tragedy occurring in Australia.

I acknowledge the work done by Assistant Minister Craig Laundy and the Building Ministers' Forum. I understand the Building Ministers' Forum has commissioned Professor Peter Shergold AC and Bronwyn Weir to assess problems in compliance and enforcement within the building and construction system across Australia, and that a national cladding audit is underway.

In closing, I would like to quote Adam Dalrymple, Director of Fire Safety of the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade. In his evidence to the Senate committee, describing the Lacrosse fire in Melbourne as one that 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.

Addressing the risks associated with non-conforming building products is an ongoing issue and this bill represents just one piece of the puzzle. But it is so important we don't leave the issue of fire safety to good luck. I commend the bill to the Senate and urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support it.