Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, if it wasn't, Senator Colbeck, then we wouldn't have this problem, but we do have the problem. Again, it's self-evident that those that are supposed to be enforcing these standards are not doing so. If they're not doing so and people are being put at risk, it is incumbent to come back to where Senator Macdonald left off. He actually told us:

Australians across the board can have confidence in our built environment.

Australians should assume and, I think rightfully, do assume that the products in our buildings are safe and fit for purpose, and that if they weren't the government would have done something about it—but they are wrong. There are so many things in our built environment that are not safe and are not fit for purpose, and the government has not done anything about it.

As Senator Colbeck pointed out, I'm a tradesperson and I've worked in the built environment, as has he and as has Senator Georgiou. I'm sure Senator Georgiou—even though I think he's a bit younger than I am—will have experienced asbestos in the workplace. I was told by people when I started my apprenticeship: 'You really shouldn't be working with asbestos. It's unsafe.' Nonetheless, all our switchboards had asbestos surroundings. The manufacturer very cleverly renamed asbestos sheet as Zelemite and all sorts of other things. So, we were happily drilling it and putting enormous amounts of asbestos into an enclosed environment in which we were working. And people would say, 'Oh, that's not asbestos; it's called something else now'—putting people at risk.

At the time, even though the companies knew that asbestos was dangerous—my employer accepted that asbestos was dangerous—we were still being given those products to work with. At that time we started to say, as tradespeople, that we were not going to work with this anymore: 'We're not going to do it.' You raised the point earlier, Senator Georgiou, about plumbers being pressured to use lead based fittings, and I'll come back to this, because I want to use this example. I and many other tradesmen with my employer started to say, 'We're simply not going to use asbestos anymore; we're just not going to do it', but if I tried to do that now I would have the ABCC down on me like a tonne of bricks. I would be deemed as taking unlawful industrial action, and I would be fined. I would be absolutely unable to push back. If my employer said, 'Well, bad luck; you will use those products,' there would be nothing I could do about it. And if I attempted to do something about it I would be in breach of the code of conduct of the building industry and I'd be prosecuted by the ABCC.

That is how bad it's gotten in this country, where the government will spend hundreds of millions of dollars putting up an organisation to ensure that employees can't take anything that looks remotely like industrial action, whether it be about their safety or not, but will spend a pittance, if anything, on compliance with building products. That's where the priorities of this government are completely twisted and completely wrong. Senator Georgiou tells us that he's been talked to by plumbers who are now being pressured to use products that have lead in them, and I say to them that they'd better be very careful in pushing back about that. The fact that they have to go to their senator to complain about it, and not do something themselves in their own workplace, speaks volumes about the lack of rights and the lack of ability of working people in this country now to protect themselves from substandard products—things that are dangerous not only for the people they're being installed for but also for the people doing the installation.

So, I'm absolutely in sync with your objectives, Senator Georgiou. You are absolutely right that this is a problem. You are right to point out—and as I said earlier, and Senator Macdonald confirmed—that people automatically assume that in this civilised country the things we're using have been deemed safe, that we would not allow things that are unsafe to be sold. But they're wrong, because there is no compliance. And whether it be just substitution—and I accept that there is an element of criminal substitution, but that's not the whole problem; that's a part of the problem—there are these products out there that can be used. The example of the aluminium cladding is, again, one of those classic examples, with a flammability rate higher than that of petrol. You are effectively surrounding your building with petrol and assuming that that's safe. Yet everyone who bought one of those apartments thinks, 'Well, surely the Australian government and the regulators that we employ would not allow a building to be built out of petrol—surely not!' Yet we do, and we've failed to stop it. This Senate has done inquiries into that matter and made recommendations, and we've still failed to act. It's an absolute abrogation of our responsibility. Quite frankly, I'm gobsmacked.

I say to Senator Georgiou: there are a number of ways of really addressing this problem. Senator Carr went through some of the ways we intend to address the problem when we're in government. But I would encourage you to think about the restriction on the rights of working people to push back against employers who want to use these products. And you might ask: 'Why do employers want to use such products? Do they really want to kill people? Do they want to poison people?'

Of course they don't! But they're driven by the dollar. They're driven by the profit motive. And while that profit motive is there, if there's weak regulation or a weak regulator and employees can't push back—if no-one can push back—they'll take the dollar. That's the problem: they'll take the dollar. And people can't have confidence in a system that allows that to operate in such a way.

So, I'd encourage you, Senator Georgiou, to talk to the opposition about these matters. Senator Carr has been deeply involved in these matters. Let's see if we can get a position that the Senate can agree to and move forward on. We would look forward to your support, but I say, also, to look at the way industrial relations are managed in this country. It has gone so far against the rights of workers, and I think that's worthy of your consideration as well. (Time expired)