Safety

<html><body>
Construction sites across NSW will be subject to a new scaffolding safety blitz after a recent round of inspections saw more than 800 notices issued for significant safety breaches.
Minister for Better Regulation, Kevin Anderson has called upon the industry to improve its standards or risk heavy fines after SafeWork’s inspectors found missing scaffold parts, unlicensed workers, and substandard safety measures for those working from heights. 
“This is no joke – this year alone three people have died and 25 have been seriously injured due to falling from a height,” Mr Anderson said. 
“Over the first three month blitz SafeWork inspectors issued 26 penalty notices, 232 prohibition notices and 580 improvement notices, 500 of which were for risks associated with falling from heights. 
“We will not tolerate poor safety and workers lives being placed at risk on our worksites, and from today we are kicking off a new three month blitz, focusing on these risks.
“The sites we’ve identified can expect another visit very soon.” 
Mr Anderson said the notices were only the first step in the process, and under the recently amended Work Health and Safety Act 2011, non-compliant businesses could face heavy fines or up to five years jail-time. 
“NSW is proud to be leading the way with the strongest work health and safety legislation in the country, and we will not hesitate to prosecute anyone who disregards the safety of others,” Mr Anderson said. 
“Everyone should feel safe doing their job. If you spot anything risky, play your part in protecting your own safety as well as that of your work mates by immediately reporting it to SafeWork via the Speak Up app or <a href="https://speakup.safework.nsw.gov.au/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="NotApplicable">website</a>.”
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Second NSW scaffold safety blitz following significant breaches

<html><body>
Falls from heights are the number one killer on NSW construction sites so construction sites across north-western Sydney can expect a visit from SafeWork Inspectors this week who will be targeting unsafe working systems across all building trades.  
Minister for Better Regulation, Kevin Anderson, said following a number of incidents on worksites throughout the state, inspectors will be on the ground focusing on high risk activities, to ensure workers on construction sites are kept safe. 
“Inspectors will be undertaking a compliance blitz on construction sites to make sure those most at risk from workplace injury are protected by safe systems of work,” Mr Anderson said. 
“Far too often our inspectors identify concerns with the way scaffolding is set up and other dangers involving working from heights so we will be targeting this area in particular.
“Falls from heights are the number one killer on NSW construction sites with most people who are seriously injured or killed falling from a height of four metres or less,” Mr Anderson said. 
Following the NSW Government’s introduction of the strongest workplace legislation in the country earlier this month, heavy on-the-spot fines will be issued to anyone who puts workers’ lives at risk through unsafe or unlicensed work activities. 
“We’re lifting workplace safety in NSW by making it everyone’s responsibility, and sending a clear message that those who puts workers at risk can now face jail time,” Mr Anderson concluded.  
For more information on SafeWork’s operations and work health and safety advice, visit <a href="http://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.safework.nsw.gov.au&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1593473055413000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFWwqlyxcsqcO_Nbsrxa32Nns1PuA">www.safework.nsw.gov.au</a>
</body></html>

Safety inspections planned for north-western Sydney construction sites

<html><body>
Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation, Kevin Anderson, has today announced the launch of SafeWork NSW’s new app, Speak Up, Save Lives which allows workers to anonymously report workplace health and safety issues.
Mr Anderson said the app will make it easier than ever to report workplace risks by sending photos of unsafe practices directly to SafeWork NSW.
Mr Anderson said the Speak Up, Save Lives app and web based tool was developed in consultation with the industry and the family of Christopher Cassaniti, an 18 year-old who lost his life in a tragic workplace incident last year.
“Since launching Speak Up, Save Lives as a web platform in October last year, SafeWork has received 1,647 reports from workers, handed out 472 improvement notices and $56,880 in penalties,” Mr Anderson said.
“Any number of terrible incidents could have happened as a result of these safety issues and Speak Up means that workers can report issues before these incidents occur, and prevent anyone from having to go through what the Cassaniti family have been through.”
Mr Anderson said the most important feature of Speak Up is confidentiality as workers who are casually employed, on temporary or labour hire contracts, or from a CALD community, are less likely to raise concerns about unsafe work.
</body></html>

SafeWork NSW's new anonymous Speak  Up, Save Lives app

<html><body>
Construction workers across the state are being warned of the dangers from unsafe scaffolds as SafeWork NSW kicks-off operation Scaff Safe 2.0.
Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation, Kevin Anderson said, “far too often we see different trades remove a small part of the scaffold to make it easier to do their work, without understanding what they are doing to the integrity of the structure, and that’s how accidents can happen."
“Our message for principal contractors is to make sure there is adequate supervision, consultation and communication on site. By doing so they can easily address the risks associated with scaffolds and we can avoid unnecessary accident or injury.”
In 2019, SafeWork NSW inspectors issued more than 1,300 notices related to scaffolds across the state, including 131 on-the-spot fines totaling $432,720.
Minister Anderson said the NSW Government does not tolerate workers lives being placed at risk which is why field operations like Scaff Safe 2.0 are so important.
Inspectors can issue on-the-spot fines of $3,600 for businesses and $720 for individuals.
They are also promoting their app Speak Up.
</body></html>

SafeWork NSW kick off scaffold safety campaign 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Australia has been ranked as one of the top destinations to study internationally. The <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.topuniversities.com/city-rankings/2019" target="_blank">QS Best Student Cities Ranking</a> released yesterday, which incorporates feedback from more than 87,000 current and prospective international students, ranked Melbourne as the third-best city to study. Sydney came in ninth.
London and Tokyo were number 1 and 2 respectively out of the world’s 120 top student cities. Melbourne and Sydney were joined in the top 50 globally by Brisbane (22), Canberra (23), Adelaide (26, up 15 places from last year) and Perth (41).
These results are rigorous and evidence-based, drawing on a variety of indexes (such as livability and affordability) and the student survey. When it came to the quality of life index (known as desirability), QS director of research Ben Sowter said: "Six of the world’s 30 highest-performing cities for our Desirability indicator are Australian: a record bettered by no other nation."
These results are highly influential and clearly drive education decision-making. We know students wishing to study overseas take serious account of universities that score well on <a href="https://www.internationalstudentsurvey.com/" target="_blank">independent rankings</a>, for instance, and there’s no reason why these should be any different.
So the performance of Melbourne and Sydney on this international platform speaks volumes for the position of the country as a study destination.
<hr>
<iframe style="border: none;" title="QS Best student cities ranking: global top 10" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/PB4zX/2/" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="100%" height="550"></iframe>
<hr>
What makes a good student city?
QS uses six metric groups to compile the ratings:
<ol>
<li>
desirability: will students enjoy a high quality of life here? Do students want to study in this city?
</li>
<li>
university rankings: how many top-ranked universities are in the city?
</li>
<li>
employer activity: will a chosen city have job opportunities after graduation?
</li>
<li>
student mix: what proportion of a city’s population is made up of students? How diverse is that student population?
</li>
<li>
affordability: can students afford to study here?
</li>
<li>
student voice: what do students studying in this city think of it?
</li>
</ol>
So, how should we read this?
In assessing quality of life the QS looks to measures such as the Economist Intelligence Unit’s <a href="http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=The_Global_Liveability_index_2018.pdf&amp;mode=wp&amp;campaignid=Liveability2018" target="_blank">Global Liveability Index</a> where in 2018 Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide were in the top ten of the 140 cities surveyed.
Melbourne held the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-most-liveable-city-title-isnt-a-measure-of-the-things-most-of-us-actually-care-about-101525">top spot</a> for seven consecutive years, only this year being edged out by Vienna by 0.7 of a percentage point.
Ben Sowter said: "This year’s edition of the QS Best Student Cities Ranking indicates that one of the primary incentives for any prospective international student to study in Australia is the high quality of life on offer there."
Quality of life includes a range of elements such as recreation facilities, public services and transport, housing and the natural environment. According to <a href="https://mobilityexchange.mercer.com/Insights/quality-of-living-rankings" target="_blank">Mercer’s 2019 Quality of Living City Rankings</a>, Melbourne and Sydney are in the top 20 worldwide.
And then there is safety.
There have been some recent challenges for Australian universities in the area of <a href="https://theconversation.com/recent-campus-attacks-show-universities-need-to-do-more-to-protect-international-students-120082" target="_blank">student safety</a>, including <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7096241/International-students-Australian-university-robbed-bashed-recent-attacks" target="_blank">robberies and attacks</a> on international students at a Melbourne university.
No destination can completely guarantee the personal safety of its residents and visitors. But looking at a <a href="https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings.jsp">variety of sources</a> and the <a href="https://thepienews.com/news/students-in-australia-feel-safe-worry-about-work/">comments of students themselves</a>, the evidence suggests Melbourne and Sydney in particular are very safe cities overall, ranking in the top 12 worldwide for <a href="https://dkf1ato8y5dsg.cloudfront.net/uploads/5/82/safe-cities-index-eng-web.pdf" target="_blank">digital, health, infrastructure and personal security</a>.
When it comes to the student mix indicator, the QS ranking puts Melbourne as the world’s best city. This is a measure that includes tolerance and inclusion, reflecting the importance for many international students of choosing a study environment that is likely to be hospitable to their own cultural background, lifestyle and identity.
While there are admittedly periodic reports in the media about <a href="http://www.southasiatimes.com.au/news/?p=1028" target="_blank">racist behaviour</a> in Melbourne, and the government is <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/government-to-consider-ways-to-protect-international-students-on-and-off-campus" target="_blank">well aware of this</a>, Melbourne is widely recognised as culturally diverse, tolerant and welcoming. On these measures we can trust the QS ranking.
Melbourne came third in the student voice, which accounts for the experience and study destination preferences of more than 87,000 students.
Sydney ranked second on student mix and ninth on employer activity, obtaining a job at the end of their studies being a <a href="https://www.internationalstudentsurvey.com/" target="_blank">very important consideration</a> for international students.
<hr>
<iframe style="border: none;" title="QS Best student cities ranking 2019: Australia" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/mT1zP/1/" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<hr>
The QS results are in keeping with the high levels of international student satisfaction reported for Australian higher education, especially for <a href="https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/research-papers/Documents/ED19-0047%20International%20Student%20Survey%20HIGHER%20EDUCATION%20Infographic_ACC-03.pdf" target="_blank">safety, living, learning and support.</a>
Where we can improve?
The 2019 QS ranking shows Australian universities are at a slight global disadvantage on measures of affordability. This is an observation previously made in The Times Higher Education <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/advice/cost-studying-university-australia" target="_blank">World University Rankings</a>.
Australian costs are generally <a href="https://www.slideshare.net/meetuniversity/average-cost-of-studying-abroad-breakdown-country-comparison" target="_blank">comparable</a> to those of the US and the UK, but far higher than Japan, Spain, Germany or Russia, which are all serious competitors in the international student market.
But cost is not the only consideration. A <a href="http://www.cais.ca/uploaded/CAIS_Connect/Boarding_Program/the-value-of-education.pdf" target="_blank">benchmark HSBC report</a> of 4,592 parents in 15 countries around the world said they would consider sending their child abroad for a better university education.
And this is where Australia has a competitive advantage.
We make up for cost when it comes to education quality. The QS results endorse government initiatives such as <a href="https://www.studymelbourne.vic.gov.au/">Study Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://www.study.sydney/">Study Sydney</a> that provide international students with employment assistance, career guidance and day-to-day living support – all of which contribute to a positive international student experience.
While the results are commendable we, shouldn’t be complacent. We know the <a href="https://www.internationalstudentsurvey.com/" target="_blank">biggest concerns</a> for prospective students relate to everyday life rather than their studies.
Issues around the cost of living, finding accommodation and employment, and safety rank among the greatest concerns. In the Australian context dealing with racism needs to be <a href="https://umsu.unimelb.edu.au/stopping-racism-starting-at-melbourne/" target="_blank">urgently addressed</a>.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121238/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Jeff Wilks, Adjunct Professor, Southern Cross University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/international-students-rank-melbourne-and-sydney-in-worlds-top-cities-but-we-can-make-them-feel-safer-121238" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

International students rank Melbourne and Sydney in world’s top cities – but we can make them feel safer

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The central role of public spaces in the social, cultural, political and economic life of cities makes it crucial that they’re accessible to everyone. One of the most important qualities of accessible public spaces is safety. If people do not feel safe in a public space, they are less likely to use it, let alone linger in it.
Perceptions of safety are socially produced and socially variable. It is not simply the presence of crime – or “threatening environments” – that contributes to lack of safety or fear.
All sorts of measures are put in place to make public spaces safer, from design to policing. But when we consider the effectiveness of these measures, we always have to ask: whose safety is being prioritised?
Women and members of ethnic and sexual minorities are among those who experience particular kinds of threats, abuse and violence in public spaces.
If we don’t account for the social dimensions of safety, there’s a risk that measures designed to enhance safety will have the opposite effect for some urban inhabitants.
Safety for a privileged few?
There are many examples of safety measures that privilege the interests of some groups over others.
The gating of urban environments and the privatisation of public space allow the wealthy to buy a form of safety by separating themselves from the wider community. Such approaches aim to provide safety for the few, rather than the many. But this might actually add to people’s fear by creating a kind of urban border anxiety.
In architecture and planning, “crime prevention through environmental design” has gained traction as a way to enhance the safety and accessibility of public spaces. This school of thought suggests that spaces can be designed to reduce crime and enhance feelings of safety and security. Improving lighting and sight lines are examples of this.
These design principles are useful, but can only take us so far.
Design can certainly help to prevent some activities. But we need to ask: exactly what are we trying to prevent, where, and why are we trying to prevent it? Does it make our cities more just, for example, to design teenagers out of public spaces by blasting classical music or broadcasting ultrasonic frequencies that can annoy only their young ears?
Who misses out on feeling safe?
There are more banal, everyday examples of how public security measures can work to make some safe at the expense of others.
Consider the 2011 Transport for NSW “customer courtesy” campaign. The campaign, which placed posters on trains and train stations, sought to improve the “customer experience” by reducing the discomfort caused by “beastly behaviours” like loud talking and seat hogging.
These may cause discomfort for some public transport users, as surveys suggested. But many passengers are likely to be concerned about another “beastly behaviour” – racism. People from ethnic and religious minorities, especially women, too often experience racism, abuse and violence on public transport.
Not only do those customer courtesy campaigns fail to call out discrimination as unacceptable, they can unintentionally give licence to racist behaviour. Eyewitness videos have shown passengers speaking languages other than English being abused by other passengers who insist they should not have to listen to such speech.
Police use of “sniffer dogs” at train stations, public spaces and events also illustrates how security measures can be exclusionary. In New South Wales, well over half of all searches resulting from sniffer dog “hits” find no drugs on the person. And the locations in which sniffer dog operations have taken place mean that the young, the poor, ethnic minorities, Aboriginal people and LGTBQI communities seem more likely to be searched.
Police justify these operations on the grounds that they “send a message” to potential offenders, thereby enhancing public safety. But this can make people in these locations feel less, rather than more, safe.
Research in the LGTBQI community in Sydney in the early 2000s found: "Calls for greater numbers of local area police are as numerous … as complaints about their visibility and overbearing presence."
For members of this community, homophobic violence, not recreational drug use, threatened safe access to public space. And yet while people struggled to have the threat of homophobic violence taken seriously, large groups of police with sniffer dogs constantly patrolled their streets, clubs and festivals, making people feel less safe and more threatened.
Principles for social justice
So, how can we ensure that safety and security measures in public space actually create safety for all? Setha Low and I have offered a set of social justice principles for planning and policing of public spaces. These are:
<ul>
<li>
distribution and redistribution: are public spaces equally accessible to all, regardless of people’s income or where they live?
</li>
<li>
recognition: are some identities and ways of being in the city unfairly denigrated or stigmatised? Is there recognition that urban inhabitants have different identities and cultures?
</li>
<li>
encounter: do public spaces create opportunities for encounters across different identities, without discrimination and harassment?
</li>
<li>
care and repair: are public spaces cared for, and are the resources for care and repair fairly distributed?
</li>
<li>
procedural justice: is the planning of public spaces open to all in a democratic process?
</li>
</ul>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93421/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Taking these principles into account can help us to avoid safety measures that have the perverse effect of reducing accessibility for some, and to approach safety in a way that makes the city more accessible and just for all.
Kurt Iveson, Associate Professor of Urban Geography, University of Sydney
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-create-safer-cities-for-everyone-we-need-to-avoid-security-that-threatens-93421" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

To create safer cities for everyone, we need to avoid security that threatens: Kurt Iveson

<html><body>
Westpac has begun an audit of all new and current building projects it is funding to make sure they comply with the building code amid concerns over flammable cladding used in construction.
Recently, a <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/75567-senate-panel-wants-total-ban-on-combustible-cladding-in-buildings" target="_blank">Senate report said flammable cladding</a> on buildings should be banned and an ABC’s Four Corners investigation showed thousands of buildings across Australia have used such material that led to the deadly Grenfell Tower fire in London. 
In what it said was an initial step, Westpac has asked the developers of all its residential and commercial projects that are under way and planned to confirm the compliance of all external wall cladding products with the National Construction Code.
The move does not seek to confirm the compliance of buildings that are already completed – Westpac said it was too early to comment on past projects.
Westpac’s move reveals the concerns of financiers about the risks of combustible cladding on buildings, such as the fire at Melbourne's Lacrosse tower in 2014.
Recent concerns about non-compliant cladding had led the bank to introduce "additional processes", a Westpac spokesman was quoted as saying by The Australian Financial Review.
"In the first instance we are undertaking an audit by asking developers of new and current projects to provide confirmation of compliance on external wall cladding products that are either designed [to be installed], being installed or are already installed," he said.
Among the details sought are the manufacturer and type of product, how the product was to be used and whether the particular product complied with the building code for its intended installation and use.
"Where required, we will be seeking further confirmation from the relevant project consultants, including a statement from the building certifier, that the appropriate certification is in place or that appropriate measures are being sought," he said.
While concerns about combustible cladding are most immediate in residential buildings – where people sleep – audits by authorities across the country have revealed panels containing flammable filling such as polyethylene, in possible breach of the building code and fire safety regulations, on public buildings including Melbourne's AAMI Park stadium and the New Royal Adelaide Hospital.
Insurers are already warning that they may refuse cover on buildings with problematic cladding, or price it too high for strata corporations to afford.
This means lenders too will want to limit their exposure to buildings such as residential towers that do not comply.
For banks right now, cladding is similar to the risks of the Y2K bug that threatened to paralyse computer systems worldwide ahead of the date change to 2000 and they will be taking similar steps to reduce those risks, said Graham Montgomery, the executive chairman of mortgage broker Custom Equity Group.
"At that stage, every lending application had to include a questionnaire on the business side about details of their software, what programs they sued, were they backed up – a whole mirror to addressing an issue that never became an issue," Montgomery said.
"The banks were proactive and I can see that moving forward that's going to be that type of thing that starts to happen."
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Cladding issue: Westpac auditing projects for compliance with safe building practices

<html><body>
A top strata management body has urged the federal government to spell out its stance on fixing the flammable cladding on buildings as it fears apartment owners could be on their own on fixing this issue which is likely to cost a huge amount of money.
The Prime Minister is being urged to reconsider his reported decision to “handball” the flammable cladding crisis onto state governments, according to a media release from Strata Community Australia, which is the leading industry body for Body Corporate and Community Title Management in Australia. It has about $1.2 trillion worth property under management.
Chief executive Erik Adriaanse said without immediate support from the federal government, thousands of apartment owners nationwide could find themselves in an insurance and financial disaster.
“We’re very concerned that owners will be left to face this issue alone, with little to no support coming from the parties responsible,” Adriaanse said today.
SCA said it was unacceptable that the federal government, based on the Prime Minister’s comments, wants to wash its hands of the issue especially as national building codes and border screening measures lie within their control.
The issue of flammable cladding was brought to light after an ABC Four Corners report detailed the volume of non-compliant flammable cladding on Australian buildings as “unquantifiable”.
Some insurance providers are reviewing how this affects their policies.
“We have already seen this issue in recent years take the shape of a multi-million dollar problem for owners in a single building, and with insurers and lenders now reviewing their position on policies and property values, there’s never been a more important time for the Federal Government to be hands on.”
The growing fear is that an “unquantifiable” number of buildings with cladding may not be able to get insurance, once identified, thus causing major problems with property valuations, and the ability of owners to get loans.
Adriaanse says by enlarge, Australia’s cladding ‘crisis’ been facilitated by a weak chain of responsibility from suppliers, to contractors, to certifiers and so on, so it is important that the federal government take responsibility on this matter.
He referred to the recent Senate report which called for a ban on such cladding. The Senate committee looking into <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/75567-senate-panel-wants-total-ban-on-combustible-cladding-in-buildings">flammable cladding</a> in buildings in the aftermath of London’s Grenfell Tower tragedy has recommended a ban on the importation, sale and use of the aluminium panels.
“The Senate Inquiry into non-compliant building products was set up to advise the Federal Government on solutions to this widespread issue, and it beggars belief that its first recommendation, to impose an immediate ban on the importation and use of non-compliant cladding, has been passed along the line.”
“A fortnight ago, it was announced that stronger screening measures for these products at the border was not going to be pursued federally, and now that the Senate Inquiry has delivered its initial report, we’re eager to be briefed on what action will be taken by the Federal Government.”
Adriaanse says the overwhelming barrier to see the safety threat of cladding managed once identified is the associated cost, which more often than not falls to the owners.
“If one of the parties involved in the supply, installation or certification cannot be pursued by owners to fund rectifications, we will see non-compliant cladding stay on Australian buildings.”
“The cladding responsible for a 13 storey fire which broke out at Melbourne’s Lacrosse Apartments back in 2014, still resides on the exterior of the building for one sole reason, the owners cannot afford to have it removed and replaced.”
“In this instance it was $8.6 million for the cladding replacement, and we’re desperate to see other owners around the country avoid bills of this crippling nature.”
Adriaanse says it has been very positive in the last week to see national builders commit to auditing their buildings at their own cost, but it is the rectification government support must come.
“We’d like to see a commitment from the Federal Government to support owners in these situations moving forward, for the benefit of making buildings and their occupants safe.
“Be it in the form of a financial assistance package, or new laws which hold suppliers, installers, certifiers and all involved in the process accountable, we’re adamant that this issue will drag on if owners are left to pick up the tab.” 
</body></html>

Federal government washing its hands of cladding issue: Strata body

<html><body>
The Senate committee looking into flammable cladding in buildings in the aftermath of London’s Grenfell Tower tragedy has recommended a ban on the importation, sale and use of the aluminium panels.
However, Coalition members on the Labor-dominated committee, said a ban would not solve the problem though they acknowledged the safety concerns of using aluminium claddings.
Recently, ABC’s Four Corners highlighted the issue, saying thousands of buildings across Australia use flammable cladding, which led to the London tower tragedy that claimed more than 80 lives.
“The committee recommends the Australian government implement a total ban on the importation, sale and use of Polyethylene core aluminium composite panels as a matter of urgency,” said the recommendation in the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Non-conforming45th/Interim_report_cladding" target="_blank">Senate panel’s report</a>.
“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,” it added. 
The report referred to the Lacrosse building fire in Melbourne in 2014 as well.
The panel was chaired by Labor Senator Chris Ketter, was critical of lax regulation.
Another member, Labor's Kim Carr, said "The questions of public safety are really fundamental.”
"We've had too many fires already in this country. We have too many buildings that are using this product,” ABC News reported him as saying.
Earlier, Labor had issued a media release saying the Senate Economic References Committee had recommended that the Turnbull Government, as a matter of urgency:
<ul>
<li>Implements a total ban on the importation, sale and use of polyethylene core aluminium composite panels.</li>
<li>Works to implement a national licencing scheme for all building practitioners.</li>
<li>Imposes a penalties regime for non-compliance with the National Construction Code, including revoking accreditation, banning from tendering in Commonwealth contracts and financial penalties.</li>
<li>Adequately resources the Federal Safety Commissioner ensuring that it is able to carry out its duties with new audit functions and projected work flows.</li>
<li>Works to establish a nationally consistent statutory duty of care for end users in the residential strata sector.</li>
<li>Brings more representatives of the supply chain into the working of the Building Minister’s Forum.</li>
<li>Considers making all Australian Standards and codes freely available to the construction industry. </li>
</ul>
However, Coalition senators on the committee issued a dissenting report saying they acknowledged the concerns about the use of combustible cladding in buildings but a ban was not the answer.
They pointed to the wide use of polyethylene core aluminium composite products in the signage industry and said banning an individual product would not solve the problem.
The Coalition senators said consideration should be given to improving the identification of the materials and ensuring they are suitable for use.
A preliminary audit in NSW has identified 1,011 buildings that require investigation. The number across Australia would go into thousands.
Leading strata management body, Strata Community Australia, says tens of thousands of apartment owners Australia wide are unfairly facing the prospect of a multi-million dollar bill to fix buildings impacted by flammable cladding.
A preliminary audit in NSW has identified <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/75461-strata-body-calls-for-federal-action-to-fix-cladding-issue-in-four-corners-aftermath" target="_blank">1,011 buildings that require investigation</a>. The number across Australia would go into thousands.
Leading strata management body, Strata Community Australia, says tens of thousands of apartment owners Australia wide are unfairly facing the prospect of a multi-million dollar bill to fix buildings impacted by flammable cladding.
</body></html>

Senate panel wants total ban on combustible cladding in buildings 

<html><body>
ABC’s latest Four Corners program that examined the widespread use of flammable aluminium cladding on potentially thousands of Australian buildings has evoked strong responses from the strata management community.
The devastating <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/71724-grenfell-tower-disaster-how-did-the-fire-spread-so-quickly" target="_blank">Grenfell Tower fire</a> in London, which claimed about 80 lives, brought into focus the flammable aluminium cladding used in buildings for decades in Australia. 
The show, titled Combustible, was reported by Debbie Whitmont and presented by Sarah Ferguson.
The Four Corners investigation revealed that some international manufacturers and their Australian suppliers knew the risks of using PE cladding on high-rise buildings, but put cutting costs over safety and continued importing the flammable material because of ambiguous regulation.
A preliminary audit in NSW has identified 1,011 buildings that require investigation. The number across Australia would go into thousands.
Leading strata management body, Strata Community Australia, says tens of thousands of apartment owners Australia wide are unfairly facing the prospect of a multi-million dollar bill to fix buildings impacted by flammable cladding.
“Our fear is that tens of thousands of apartment owners around the country, could be left to face this serious safety threat alone, and we want to see Federal Government intervention ASAP,”  said a SCA spokesperson.
And it’s not just residential buildings, even hospitals, shopping centres and commercial buildings, have been built with flammable aluminium cladding.
“Last week the Federal Government announced that it will not consider tougher screening measures at the border to stop unsafe building materials, and lieu of this decision, we want to hear from the Prime Minister on what action his government will be considering,” said the SCA media release.
SCA is the top industry body for Body Corporate and Community Title Management in Australia &amp; New Zealand that manages a combined property portfolio of more than $1.2 trillion.
Meanwhile, developers’ body, Master Builders, has sought to reach out to address the problem and said people must have faith in their work. 
“Master Builders and its 33,000 members want the community to have faith in the safety of our built environment,” Denita Wawn, CEO of Master Builders Australia said in a media response.
“It’s completely understandable that fires at the Grenfell Tower in the UK and the Lacrosse building in Victoria have highlighted the importance of a regulatory system that has the confidence of both the community and the building industry,” she said.
“As Master Builders has consistently said, the challenge is to make more effective the extensive and robust regulatory regime that ensures the safe use of building products,” Denita Wawn said.
She said that this was mainly the responsibility of government, but requires the combined effort from all those in the building and construction supply chain.
“A National Taskforce established by Master Builders and comprised of experts from across Australia is progressing policy reforms that support quality and safety of our homes, workplaces, hospitals and other public buildings,” Denita Wawn said.
“Master Builders has been calling for a range of reforms that applies to the whole building supply chain. This includes the need for a centrally administered building product certification system with clear, accessible information and improved rigor and enforcement of the current regulations,” she said.
“Ensuring that everyone in the construction chain – manufacturers, designers, importers, wholesalers, regulators and builders - has access to clear, consistent and readily available (and reliable) information about building products will assist to reduce the incidence of them being used in a non-compliant way.”
She cited government efforts so far that include draft amendments to the National Construction Code around fire safety and the online information hub established by the Australian Building Codes Board.
</body></html>

Safety

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Safety

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News