Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, four proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Burston:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need to enforce compliance by all Australian importers and suppliers of building products with Australian Standards including by:

(a) preventing the importation of plumbing fittings that contain lead that can be leached into drinking water and banning of the sale of such fittings in Australia;

(b) ensuring that plumbing products are Water Mark certified;

(c) preventing the importation of other building materials which are non-compliant with the National Construction Code;

(d) adequately enforcing the National Construction Code requirements in relation to materials being installed to ensure compliance with Australian Standards; and

(e) ensuring there are sufficient measures in place to check materials used on building sites and in industry."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

Mr President, the standing order requires four senators, not including the mover of the motion, for support for the motion. I put it to you that the motion was not supported.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Marshall, I counted several in the government pocket up here that easily got me to four, not including the mover. I will proceed unless someone wishes to challenge the count that I undertook.

Peter Georgiou (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need to enforce compliance by all Australian importers and suppliers of building products with Australian Standards including by:

(a) preventing the importation of plumbing fittings that contain lead that can be leached into drinking water and banning of the sale of such fittings in Australia;

(b) ensuring that plumbing products are Water Mark certified;

(c) preventing the importation of other building materials which are non-compliant with the National Construction Code;

(d) adequately enforcing the National Construction Code requirements in relation to materials being installed to ensure compliance with Australian Standards; and

(e) ensuring there are sufficient measures in place to check materials used on building sites and in industry.

I rise to speak on behalf of Senator Burston's urgency motion. Building products are being imported that don't meet Australian standards and are putting the health and safety of all Australians at risk. Only as recently as Sunday, an extensive media report revealed that cheap imported plumbing fittings containing lead can be leached into drinking water. As you all know, lead is a toxin that can be particularly harmful to children. I believe this is a problem Australia must address as a matter of public urgency at a national level.

Perth's new multimillion-dollar children's hospital is an example of what can go wrong and how urgent the situation is. The hospital was originally due to open in 2015, but has been plagued by a series of problems including asbestos in roofing panels and lead in the water. A comprehensive report by the state's Chief Health Officer found imported brass fittings to be the likely cause of lead contamination in the hospital's drinking water, which has contributed to lengthy delays in its opening. The report found the fittings had corroded, leaching lead into the water system. It has cost millions of dollars to try and rectify these problems, and the opening of this much-needed children's hospital has been by over 2½ years. Last month it was revealed that there was also lead in the water at the drinking fountains at Perth's new billion-dollar stadium.

I believe public health and safety is being put at risk by the flood of cheap taps and other non-compliant parts that have the potential to leak lead and other toxic metals into drinking water. It's a concern which is shared by the WA Master Plumbers and Gasfitters Association and the Plumbing Products Industry Group, which represents manufacturers and importers. TheSunday Times newspaper in Perth reported at the weekend that they had been contacted by plumbers who say they are seeing more and more defective parts which don't comply with the WaterMark Certification Scheme, which exists to ensure products are safe and fit for purpose. They blame a massive loophole that allows hardware stores to sell taps and other plumbing products that aren't WaterMark certified, even though plumbers risk penalties if they install these fittings. They are demanding legislation to close the loophole. Today I spoke to the master plumbers association's chief executive, Murray Thomas, who outlined a series of issues, stating:

This isn't about protecting our industry. This is about public health. There is nothing to stop consumers purchasing products that are not WaterMark certified, to prevent retailers stocking them or to prevent wholesalers and builders from directly importing them.

This problem is part of a wider crisis in Australia involving non-conforming and non-compliant building products. Asbestos was found in Chinese-made roof panels at Perth Children's Hospital. These panels were cut on site, putting workers at risk, and had to be removed at a considerable cost. As a former tradesman and someone who has real-life experience on building sites, I have spoken to a few colleagues in the industry and they have told me of recent encounters where cheap imported plumbing products, which have the potential to leach lead, have been fitted. At the same time, however, another problem has emerged, with the importation of counterfeit products that pose as being WaterMark certified but in actual fact are not. I am aware that pressure has been placed on plumbers to install non-WaterMark products that, in some cases, a builder or owner has sourced, and if the plumber refuses a residential customer then they may lose that job.

As well as being available as over-the-counter purchases in retail hardware stores, non-WaterMark and counterfeit WaterMark products are readily available online, and commercial builders buy them directly, in large volumes, from overseas suppliers for their large projects. Sometimes samples are used to gain certification and then cheaper, non-conforming products that carry the WaterMark logo are supplied.

There is no doubt that we are lacking a proper regulatory regime throughout the country, except in Queensland, which I understand has banned the importation of non-compliant plumbing products. What we need here is enforcement, which at the moment is the responsibility of state based authorities, and in some cases they don't even have enough resources to ensure the rules are met. In Western Australia, I have been told, there are only nine inspectors to do this job.

People assume their drinking water is safe, as we have the best standards here in Australia, but imports of non-compliant products put the safety of the general public in jeopardy. This is a serious problem which needs to be addressed. Therefore it is my firm belief that, rather than getting separate states to legislate on this issue, we need a national law to bring the whole industry into unison. The plumbing and gasfitting association have said that contamination of water systems as a result of non-conforming products 'is potentially catastrophic, and we'll be failing the Australian community if these problems are not addressed urgently'. There is a clear and entirely responsible expectation by the industry and consumers that if a product is for sale in Australia it will be lawful and fit for the purpose for which it was intended.

My office received, only a few hours ago, photos from today which show plumbing products that don't have WaterMark certification on sale at a Perth hardware store. I have also received a statement from the industry body outlining its position on importing products containing lead, and I have to say I give it my full support. It seeks:

To sum up, there is mounting evidence that even minute traces of lead found in drinking water can do harm. The World Health Organization already maintains there is no known safe level for lead, and the master plumbers association has said we should follow the American step by reducing lead content to near zero. If we can help protect lives, why shouldn't we do this?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One would almost say this motion is a no brainer. Clearly it deserves support, as does any regulation or law deserve support. I know there is one union around the country, the CFMEU, that thinks that laws are made for everybody else except it. It seems to think that it can choose which laws it will abide by and which laws it will ignore, but the rest of Australia agrees that laws are in place to abide by, even if sometimes we don't think they're appropriate. As law-abiding citizens, we should actually abide by them. What Senator Burston and the One Nation party have done with this motion is to highlight the inconsistencies in regulation, or perhaps enforcement, of the national building code around Australia. I thank Senator Burston for raising this matter; I thank Senator Georgiou for his opening remarks, which highlight the issues of concern. They are no doubt of concern not only to the movers but also, I would imagine, to all of us in this chamber.

The Australian government clearly recognises there is genuine community concern about the use of non-compliant and non-conforming building products. Our National Construction Code is amongst the best in the world, and Australians across the board can have confidence in our built environment. We do recognise that we need to continue to work hard to ensure that Australians can continue to have that trust in our built environment. The federal government does not have legislative or regulatory power in this area, but it has an important role in working with the states and territories to ensure the safety of buildings. I congratulate the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation, the Hon. Craig Laundy, for his work with the Building Ministers Forum, which brings together the relevant Commonwealth, state and territory ministers to set strategic directions for building and construction activity in Australia. The key issue that all governments have agreed requires priority focus is addressing building safety in ensuring appropriate compliance with the national code.

Now I understand, from Senator Burston's motion and from the speech of its mover, Senator Georgiou, that what One Nation is saying is it shouldn't be left to the states and territories; there should be a national code and national enforcement. You could argue about that, but that is, unfortunately, an element of our federalism: we do have a lot of areas of jurisdiction where the Commonwealth doesn't have power but has, over the years, tried to bring a national approach to particular areas.

The Commonwealth is not set up in a public service way to send the police around to enforce the National Construction Code. That has always traditionally been left to the state and territory governments. I understand that One Nation is saying, 'You should get the states and territories out of it and get the Commonwealth to do it.' That opens up the debate on how much the Commonwealth should be centrally controlling everything and how much we believe in federalism, diversification of power and the right of states to administer the things they were left to do under the Constitution. Things that weren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution as Commonwealth powers automatically become the responsibility of the states. That's how it has worked over the years. As I said, there are many different arguments about whether that's good or bad.

One area I would like to see the Commonwealth have more involvement in is rivers and streams, and the allocation and control of water in our vast country, but, unfortunately, only in the Snowy Mountains area and the Murray-Darling Basin, where rivers cross state borders, does the Commonwealth have authority under the Constitution. You can see what happened with the Snowy Mountains scheme, and particularly Snowy 2.0, the brainchild—and love child, might I say—of Prime Minister Turnbull. The Commonwealth is able to go in and do things there, whereas in my state of Queensland, as Senator Hanson knows, although the Commonwealth government can get feasibility studies done and provide money for water activity, we can't actually do it, because it is a responsibility of the state government. As Senator Hanson well knows, you cannot get the Queensland Labor government to do anything with water, because of the Greens political party which keeps them in power—although I might say they're not the only party to do so; One Nation's preference arrangements also assisted. Because of that, you can never rely on some of the water regulation and storage projects desperately needed in my state of Queensland, and I suspect in other states also.

But I have diverged slightly from the question of this motion, in which the senator has highlighted a number of quite dangerous and concerning activities that should be curtailed. I'm not sure whether the Commonwealth can—perhaps by better use of import and border protection powers—look at some of these imported construction enhancements that are not in accordance with the National Construction Code. They are in the code for a reason. The code was adopted by the Commonwealth and all of the state ministers at the ministerial forum. Each state agreed this code would apply. As I mentioned, it's then up to the regulatory enforcement authorities in the various states and territories to ensure those rules in the code—which, as I understand, are replicated in state and territory legislation—are enforced.

In his motion, Senator Burston raises that wider issue: should we leave that with the states and territories or take it over as a Commonwealth responsibility? As I said, that's a bigger concern. But I think that by raising this very important issue in the chamber today when, fortuitously, the other chamber isn't sitting, so we get a little bit more publicity for these sorts of things than we would normally get in the Senate, the mover has highlighted some of the existing problems and the need for enforcement action.

As I said before, it's a no-brainer. The law is there for a very valid purpose, and if it's being breached it should be enforced because we certainly don't want the people of Australia to be impeded upon by substandard products that can, at times, be very dangerous. So I thank the mover for alerting the parliament to this. A number of Senate committees have dealt with similar issues, particularly following the fire in London last year. It is an important thing and I'm glad it is being discussed. The more we can draw attention to this, the more we can get community support for the proper enforcement of the laws which deal with construction within Australia.

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

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this and I appreciate a matter of this importance being brought before the Senate for discussion. It is interesting to note that Liberal senators are supporting One Nation in bringing this matter on, continuing the ever-strengthening Liberal-One Nation alliance. And it is even more astonishing to hear Senator Macdonald, the senior Liberal in this place—at least in terms of years served—saying 'any regulation or law deserves support'. I had to write that down to make sure I got it right! That is good to hear because this is a government that in so many areas completely ignores the laws it is required to enforce. And as Senator Carr just outlined—reasonably eloquently!—already they are completely ignoring their own standards, their own requirements and their own obligations in the area that is being talked about. As usual, they say it's the states' fault. Ensuring human safety, ensuring that humans and our environment are not poisoned, has been a core Greens value since the foundation of the Australian Greens.

Normally when we are talking about having regulations not just in place but enforced to protect people from being poisoned by corporations that put profit ahead of human safety and community need, you would expect Senator Macdonald to be complaining about green tape and red tape getting in the way of business being able to operate. This government has a fixation on attacking not just the CFMEU but also teachers. Today there was a motion by the Liberals, which, sadly, was supported not just by the usual One Nation-Liberal alliance but by others as well, attacking teachers in Queensland for handing out a sticker with a flag on it. The government are so concerned about the safety of buildings that they want to attack the union that focuses on the safety of buildings to protect the people who have to live in those buildings. That's how concerned they are about human safety. They want to attack the organisation that, more than anything else, focuses on trying to ensure that the building materials are safe. And yet they have the astonishing gall to come in here and say that any law or regulation deserves support! Time and time again, this government deliberately seeks to undermine its own legal obligations—in the environmental area, for starters. They completely and deliberately flout their obligations under our national environment laws and in so many other areas as well. I suppose we should be pleased that at least that statement from the government speaker is on the record, but it is hard to believe that it is actually genuine.

It is absolutely crucial that we ensure that the most fundamental aspects of human existence—our drinking water, the homes we live in and the hotels we stay in—are safe from contamination and also in terms of fire standards and all the other building standards that the Greens and others have promoted for years. We continually get attacked for red tape and green tape. What we are about is trying to ensure that sustainability, human safety and the basic rights and needs of the community are put first, rather than corporate profit. But we usually get attacked. Whilst there may be the usual hollow words that we have come to expect over quite a number of years now from Senator Macdonald, it is at least important to have that on the record.

So the Greens very much support the need for proper enforcement of construction codes and, in many cases, the strengthening of them to make them more effective. The tragedy of that fire in London that killed so many people was not just because of its basic human loss but because it was a symbol of what happens when corporate profit gets put ahead of human safety, particularly, as it happens, for those who are least well-off—those least able to afford to ensure that their drinking water and their homes are safe. (Time expired)

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to this motion not necessarily because I support it but because I think it deserves to be debated. It is an issue of concern for someone who spent 25 years working in the construction industry and who has seen the results of this at a practical level, as Senator Georgiou has expressed he has himself. In fact, we're probably rare beasts, alongside Senator Marshall, who was an electrician—is an electrician? I'm not sure whether he still has his licence.

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

I still am; my hourly rate's much higher now!

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure, appropriately, Senator Marshall. I will go to one of the points that Senator Carr talked about. I'm not sure, to be honest, whether he was actually arguing for the motion or against the motion at the time because he was talking about wanting to ban products but then not wanting to ban products. He was talking about regulation but in different forms or another. But I do note the work that he's done in relation to the number of inquiries, particularly around cladding. I have to say I disagree with him on the cladding ban too, because the core element of this whole debate is ensuring that products that are used in construction, whether they be for residential, commercial or industrial, are fit for purpose.

Australia has, as a number of senators have said already, a standards based construction code. One of the really good things that has happened in recent years is that that construction code has been put online and is freely available for everybody. Once upon a time, that wasn't the case. When I was in the industry you had to buy it and then maintain it at currency. It wasn't necessarily easy, because one of the elements of our federation, as Senator Macdonald indicated, is that there are different rules and regulations in varying states, which can be an issue. We have progressed significantly over the last couple of decades not only with common recognition of qualifications within the construction industry for various trades but also with bringing some of the standards that exist into the national code.

Senator Georgiou, if I were a taxpayer from Western Australia who had contributed to the hospital, for example, or to the stadium, I'd be pretty bloody angry that the circumstances that arose in those places actually occurred. I can recall, as a very, very small contractor in the early nineties, when the big guys in the construction industry in this country decided they'd bring in quality assurance. One of the reasons for bringing it in was that they thought that nobody else could provide it as well. They were looking for quality assurance to be a competitive advantage for them in the marketplace with key customers, particularly government, that nobody else could offer. They would provide that assurance as part of their system of offering design-and-construct packages, particularly to government and to large corporate clients, as to how their project was going to comply not only with the specification but also with the construction codes.

One of the genuine questions that I have in this broader debate is: what is going on with that process? Who is actually properly operating their quality systems and the compliance that should fit within those, and then checking those before a contractor goes on to the next project? If I were in the government of Western Australia, I'd be going back through the systems of the people who were responsible for various elements of those particular projects to see where they went wrong.

Senator Carr talked about the issue around substitution, and I think Senator Georgiou did also. The bane of my existence in competing in the construction industry as a contractor was knowing that there were a set of specifications provided, particularly when you were dealing with a commercial project, and somebody wasn't providing, in particular, materials that were compliant with the specifications. Again, the specifications are written in a way that refers back to compliance with the standards. So those sorts of things that you talked about raise for me a question about the system: who's looking at that process of compliance when considering the next project or the next tender?

Senator Georgiou mentioned the issue of lead in fittings. That was taken out of the Australian system in 1989. The requirement is that fittings be lead free. So here we are, decades later, with a problem. If someone's going to provide a counterfeit product, that creates a particular problem in itself—and that, in my view, is a criminal act in more than one way. There are already rules, regulations and laws in place that deal with that. If you're providing a counterfeit product into the market, if it's not as you present it, it breaches not only consumer law but also other laws in respect of potential safety and a number of other things.

Like Senator Carr, I've had representations around glass. I've had representations around plywood. I've had representations around steel. I've had representations around pipework for fire systems, and there have been some incidents—let's not call them 'famous'; let's call them 'infamous' incidents—where, particularly in respect of fire systems, the pipe that was provided wasn't in compliance with the Australian standard required, and it burst. It's been a significant expense to people who are looking to access their building, but also to other contractors through the system. Having also looked at some projects in respect of trying to work out where the fault lay, I think it's a complex and difficult matter.

I think the work that is being done, through the body that looks after the national consumer code, to ensure that qualified, competent practitioners are engaged throughout the construction process is very important because, as I said earlier, this is about ensuring that materials are fit for purpose. There's no point putting a 10-millimetre galvanised bolt into a machine that requires something that has high-tensile steel in it. It's going to fail.

That's what the standards are there for. That's what the certification processes are supposed to be there for. That's what the specification processes are there for. In circumstances where you've got an architect and an engineer working on a project, part of their job is to ensure that the products that are going into the building are as they have specified. For an engineer, their job is to design a structure such that it's structurally sound, and it's also part of their job to ensure that it's built to that standard, particularly if they are employed to do that, rather than just do the initial design. But there should be a process of ensuring that that's done, and the quality assurance system that I talked about earlier is certainly part of that process. But, in respect of other products that perhaps are not so much structural but part of the fit-out process, it's certainly up to the architects or the supervising agent to ensure that those products are what they specified they were. Substitution in the industry is not a new thing. I can recall submitting tenders and being required, if I wanted to put a substitute product in, particularly in government circumstances, to justify the fact that it was at least equivalent to the product in all aspects to the one that was specified in the specification.

One of the real concerns I have in this current debate is actually about compliance and—as Senator Carr said, and I agree with him—enforcement of the system. It's all very well, though, for Senator Carr to try and blame the Commonwealth government for this, but we do live in a federation of states and there is a division of powers. Quite frankly, from my perspective, those who are responsible for managing those things should manage those things. They shouldn't be passing it off to one level of government or another. One level of government shouldn't need to come in over the top of the other. The responsibilities are there for a purpose, and they should be complied with, in my view.

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

Senator Georgiou, thank you for your contribution in this debate. I think there is much merit to what you have said. In fact, your resolution wouldn't have been far away from getting support from the opposition. Given it was a motion that wasn't about wedging anyone politically—it was about trying to address a very genuine need, which I accept is there—I would encourage you to talk to us about these matters. We may have been able to get to a position of support for such a resolution, but, as it stands, we can't quite get there. We do support the bulk of it. I certainly support your comments and the concerns that you've raised.

I do want to take a little bit of issue, before I get back to some of the substance of it, with some of what Senator Colbeck said. I do this respectfully. Senator Colbeck indicated that there are regulations and standards out there that have to be complied with and that it's those people that are responsible for complying with the regulation who should have the responsibility to do so. That's absolutely self-evident, but what is also self-evident is that people that are responsible for ensuring compliance, under regulations and the code, are not doing so. This is the problem that Senator Carr indicated very clearly earlier is because—

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I agree.

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

I'm glad you say you agree.

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

We have a proposition—Senator McKenzie laughed, but Senator Colbeck just indicated he did agree—that we've privatised the system, and we've made it so weak no-one's responsible for doing it.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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)

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

I rise to contribute to the urgency motion relating to the need for enforcing compliance with Australian building product standards.

On 23 June 2015, three former senators—Nick Xenophon, John Madigan and Jacqui Lambie—referred an inquiry into non-conforming building products to the Senate Economics References Committee. Since then, the committee has tabled three interim reports. The most recent, on protecting Australians from asbestos, was tabled in the Senate on 22 November 2017. The evidence presented to the committee was concerning and demonstrated significant issues with non-complying and non-conforming building products.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee and, in particular, Senator Ketter, for the extensive work done on this important issue of public policy. I'd also like to acknowledge the work done by the Building Ministers Forum, who I understand has commissioned Professor Peter Shergold AC and Bronwyn Weir to assess problems in compliance and enforcement within the building construction system across Australia. I look forward to seeing the results of this work.

From glass windows that cracked and disintegrated at ASIO's new headquarters in Canberra to non-complying electrical products, such as the Infinity electrical cables that posed serious risks to the health and safety of Australians, the impact of non-complying and non-conforming building products cannot be overstated. 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. I could talk about the follow-on fire in the Grenfell Tower where, sadly, the luck at Docklands was not present. I don't feel the need.

The Senate inquiry also received submissions and heard evidence that compliance and enforcement are not keeping pace with rapid changes to our economy and global supply chains, or how or where products are manufactured or sourced. There appears to be a growing number of fraudulent documents associated with imported products, and this makes it hard for surveyors to identify what is compliant and what is not. Overseas laboratories are now testing to Australian standards, but their reports have identified major testing and reporting flaws in addition to misuse. This is simply not good enough.

I note that everyone who has spoken here today has done so in earnest agreement with the principles behind the motion. This need not have been an urgency motion. If there had been action when these issues were first raised, it could have been managed calmly, strategically and without ever-present risk to life. I look up in the gallery and see primary school children that I fear may still be debating this topic when they are in the Senate. Unfortunately, Senator Burston is right in saying that this is a matter of urgency, and I thank Senator Burston for bringing it to the Senate's attention.

Question negatived.