In June 2017, the UK was hit by a tragedy of unimaginable proportions when a severe fire struck Grenfell Tower, a residential block in London’s west. Seventy-two people were killed.
In the aftermath of one of the country’s deadliest fires, it was revealed that the blaze spread so quickly due to the building being covered in highly flammable cladding. The cladding had not been replaced with a safer alternative despite campaigning from residents and the local community.
Grenfell was an unspeakable tragedy, not only because of the incredibly high death toll but because it was preventable. It was a result of governmental negligence. New research has now shed light on Australia’s own combustible cladding crisis, which threatens to endanger thousands of premises across the country.
The problem as it stands
Australia has a significant number of buildings built with combustible cladding — residential units, hospitals and even the Adelaide Convention Centre. Recent research has shown that up to 3400 units across the country are potentially at risk. Victoria alone has more than 600 private buildings made with these materials. The price tag to fix all this? An estimated $6.2 billion.
This research wasn’t the first we’ve heard of the problem though. Major evidence of this danger also appeared in 2014 with the Lacrosse Building fire. Residents were evacuated from the high rise in Melbourne’s Docklands following a fire caused by a discarded cigarette. No one was killed or injured, but many residents were displaced with some only returning to their homes six months after the incident. In a post-incident report the Melbourne Fire Brigade noted the fire spread intensely through external wall cladding; it covered multiple floors in less than six minutes.
In February this year the Neo 200 Tower in Melbourne went up in flames too. Luckily, no one was injured or killed, but residents were horrified when it was revealed that the tower was covered in the same cladding as Grenfell.
What is being done?
In a report following the Lacrosse Building fire, the City of Melbourne challenged the quality of the imported cladding. Did it meet national standards? Their investigation found that there was no specific documentation provided by the private building surveyor to ensure the Chinese-made cladding had been checked or accredited.
The CFMEU has also called for proper regulation of imported materials, arguing that an Australian safety standard should be imposed upon all building materials entering the country. They have also called on members to refuse to install unsafe cladding on any buildings.
The Andrews government in Victoria has promised $600 million to fix the cladding on hundreds of buildings in the city as well as 15 high-risk buildings. On August 21, Bayside Council in New South Wales also served 14 cladding rectification notices to buildings in the area, ordering owners to rectify or remove dangerous cladding. However, state authorities are primarily expecting homeowners in private buildings to foot the bill. Is that really fair or sustainable?
The money certainly isn’t coming from the federal government either. There is no federal funding allocated for the repair of buildings with dangerous materials, and the Morrison government has rejected Victoria’s application for funding to cover the cost of repairs.
The lack of action from the federal government has been condemned by many, including the Strata Community Association, but the prime minister insisted that funding responsibility lies directly with the states when he addressed the issue in July:
It’s their responsibility, they need to deal with it.
It seems that the combustible cladding crisis is a direct result of an industry that values profit over safety. Cheap, unsafe materials are imported into this country in favour of accredited, non-combustible products and the consequences can be deadly.
One of the most basic requirements of a developed, modern country is a safe place to live and work. We must hold private contractors and the construction industry accountable. But don’t take it from me. Take it from the Grenfell Action Group; take it from a chilling blog post they wrote eight months before the fire:
“It is a truly terrifying thought but the Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord.
“The Grenfell Action Group predict that it won’t be long before the words of this blog come back to haunt the KCTMO management … They can’t say that they haven’t been warned!”
It’s incredible in a country that has introduced a slow tsunami of draconian laws that has drowned our freedoms and civil rights and created a surveillance state and semi police state all in the name of keeping us safe and secure against a minuscule threat, at the same time our regulators have been allowing buildings to be built clad in petrol, like match sticks waiting to be lit. What a fucked up country we live it.
I am not sure why rectifying faults in private buildings should be paid for out of the public purse. Privatise the gains, socialise the losses!
Perhaps provide a loan rather than a hand out.
There is an argument for government responsibility. State governments make and enforce the building materials standards; they haven’t done it. Builders build with materials they are allowed to use. They’d build with Styrofoam if the regulations allowed it. The Federal government regulates, or at least has the power to regulate, what building materials can be imported. They haven’t done it. Both tiers of government bear responsibility for allowing unsafe materials to be available and used.
The Govt. can track down people when they owe Centrelink or ATO money.
How come they can’t track down crooked builders and Developers? Yeah I know they have declared bankrupt but the actual people responsible are still around.
Under what law? There’s no legal obstacle to builders cladding buildings in this stuff- that’s why both the state and federal governments are culpable.
Building surveyors are the problem, not builders. Privatisation strikes again.
I thought that the feds had made the importation of these flammable products, but maybe not.
The whole issue with building standards is that the Australian Building Codes Board prepares the National Building Code and are the child of the Building Ministers’ Forum. How the code is administered in each jurisdiction is up to the states and territories.
A second issue is that, building certification has been privatised from local governments, although some councils still employ building surveyors on a fee for service, but they are paid by the builders. They therefore have a huge conflict of interest because of their dependence on builders for ongoing work. Figure it out. Phoenixing in the building industry is the third issue. Until the directors of major building companies are held individually liable for rectification of faults like those in the Opal Tower and other major building projects, we will continue to be saddled with a second and third rate building industry.
Missed the word illegal.