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

I indicate from the beginning that the Labor Party will not be supporting this proposition relating to building products. I am surprised that the government is supporting it. It's quite clear that Senator Macdonald has not read the resolution that is before the chamber. I notice that the government was only too happy to stand to support this resolution, but they obviously haven't read it. Whilst I commend the proposal that we should re-regulate the building industry—I commend that, and the Labor Party has quite specific policies for the re-regulation of the building industry—I can't support a proposition, and I'm surprised the government can, that says we should ban the importation of other building materials that are not compliant with the National Construction Code. A ban on all non-compliant building materials would, of course, see very little material come in in terms of building products into this country, given the extent of the failure of regulation for the building industry in this country.

We know what has to be done in terms of the aluminium core cladding. We know what has to be done there, and that is that it has to be banned because it is so dangerous. We have made our policy position very clear on that. The government has opposed that position. The government has said, 'Oh, we can't do that.' But now they are supporting a proposition that says that all products that are non-compliant should be banned—all products. We know the situation with regard to the Australian building industry is one where the government is only too happy to fully regulate the building industry when it comes to controlling to reduce the wages and conditions of workers within the building industry. They are only too happy. They have no constitutional problems and there is no issue whatsoever about the capacity of the Commonwealth under a Liberal government to suppress the capacity of workers to protect themselves. But when it comes to the operations of crooks, of shysters, of people that have been ripping off the public, then this is a Commonwealth government that runs a million miles from its responsibilities in terms of public safety. Fundamental questions of enforcement on public safety are quite alien to this government.

It is not as if they don't know what's going on; there has been Senate inquiry after Senate inquiry in terms of the operations of aluminium cladding, in terms of glass, in terms of cabling, in terms of steel and in terms of plumbing products. The evidence before this chamber has been overwhelming. Let me give one example in terms of the question of sprinklers in terms of plumbing products. The non-conforming building products inquiry heard that in the run-up to the G20 summit in Brisbane in 2014, the Australian Fire and Emergency Services Council conducted a safety audit of hotels in the Brisbane CBD, and 71 hotels were checked for the audit. These are the hotels that were, of course, the five-star hotels designed to accommodate the leaders of the global nations who were attending the G20, like President Obama and other guests in this country. Of the 71 hotels that were checked for audit, 68 were found to be not up to standard. The sprinkling systems were not up to standard in 68 of the 71. Why was that? Because simple arrangements have now been entered into in the building industry in this country where the certification system has become relationship based. That is, the owner of a building—a hotel, in this case—goes out and subcontracts out the certification arrangement, and under those circumstances they can get the findings they want on fundamental issues as to whether their sprinkler system is working properly and safely. The certifiers now know that their livelihoods depend upon keeping good relations with the building owners, or with the builders in terms of putting up a building. The responsibility for making sure that products and practices conform with appropriate standards has effectively been privatised.

That's the position under the national Building Code in this country. This is a proposition that Minister Laundy seems to constantly misunderstand. The assistant minister, you might think, might have further responsibilities to understand his responsibilities. But of course, given that there have been no Liberals turning up to these various inquiries, it's not surprising that the senators aren't reporting back to the government on just how serious these propositions are.

But departmental officials have been going. They know the consequences of the failure to maintain our building regulations in this country. They know that the fundamental flaw in our building regulations is the provision that says that there is a capacity—no matter how strict the black-and-white rules—and a provision in the Building Code that says that we can change whatever provision is there, by a code that says, 'We can deem to satisfy; we have a performance based arrangement; we can get around the regulations,' by people who are acting in private industry, with a relationship to the developer, to the builder or to the building owner. It says, 'We've got an alternative to these so-called rigid standards.' Is it any wonder that we have such widespread abuse? And is it any wonder that the overwhelming evidence of document fraud, certification fraud and product substitution is so common in the building industry? What is a wonder is the fact that the government has done nothing about it. Oh, it has another committee look into it. It gets the mirror out. It looks into the problem—and goes on looking into the problem.

We've seen this issue in the Grenfell Tower fire in London. The fire officials in this country are saying that the same thing can happen here. The minister says, 'Oh, we've got a sprinkler system regulation here. It's different from the British.' Well, the reality is there's no enforcement mechanism in place. We know this from the evidence to the inquiry—put by not just anybody in the process but by General Manager of the Australian Building Codes Board Mr Neil Savery. He said 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. He said that the sophisticated, performance based code of regulation which was introduced in the early 1990s needed highly qualified people to understand how it works. At the same time, the former, government-run building certification was privatised, and the industry underwent a process of 'deregulation or reduction in regulatory requirements around things like mandatory inspections'. So there is a fundamental flaw in the regulatory arrangements in this country.

Then of course there is a system where there is just an appalling record as to compliance, where developers want to cut corners, and they say, 'Well, of course, if you enforce the standards, it's a brake on innovation.' Public safety then becomes a product to be traded. And governments—particularly Liberal governments—that want to promote this notion of deregulation and privatisation say that public safety is someone else's concern.

The interim taskforce in Victoria which looked at these issues highlighted the simple facts—which the Senate report also identified—that these were not isolated questions but questions that were systemic, running right throughout the building industry, and that this cost-cutting attitude, this attitude of a cavalier disregard for public safety, ran right across the industry.

That's why Labor has said: 'We need a new licensing arrangement. We need to bring public accountability back into the building industry. Everyone in the supply chain needs to be licensed, and if you fail this fundamental test in terms of your obligations to public safety you lose your licence. You lose your livelihood.'

We want to ensure that public accountability is restored to the building practices in this country. We do not just want an assault on trade union activity; we want everyone in the building industry to be responsible for meeting their obligations. We do not want a blind eye to be turned, we do not want another buck shoved, we do not want another suggestion that it is someone else's responsibility; we want genuine accountability brought back into the industry. That is why Labor has said we will ban the importation of cladding of a particularly dangerous type. But we will also ensure that there is proper accountability in the industry by having a national licensing system that ensures public accountability.

We will also say this: the cabinet minister in the national government takes responsibility for the building industry, not the person who runs behind the organ grinder's cart like the curs in this government—people who have no knowledge of what is going on, no genuine commitment to public safety and no political weight to actually ensure that they can stand up— (Time expired)