House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Aluminium Composite Cladding Aluminium Composite Cladding The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly West Torrens The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (15:15): Every South Australian has the right to know if they are living or working in a building with aluminium cladding that is dangerous. Every South Australian has the right to know, and this minister does not have the right not to tell them. We found out today that the minister has not informed each and every occupant or resident who owns or works in one of these buildings that they are potentially working and living in a death trap. Indeed, he will not even tell us, of the 28 buildings he has identified, if defect notices have been issued. He has washed his hands of it. He is saying, 'This is all up to the councils. Don't blame me. I just work here. I am just the minister in charge. I can't possibly be held to account for people's safety in buildings.' The opposition holds grave concerns for the way in which this minister has conducted himself and the way in which he has managed this fiasco. The minister will not and cannot escape scrutiny. We asked him a very simple question. We did not ask him to identify the buildings and we did not ask him to identify where they were or their addresses. All we asked was this: how many defect notices have been issued under the Development Act by councils to begin remediation works? He will not answer. From that, we should assume that none have. Indeed, he is trying to conflate an owner or occupier being notified that they are at high risk with a defect notice. What is the penalty, without a defect notice, for work not beginning? What is the penalty for an owner not telling the tenant of their property that they are living or working in a high-risk building? Nothing. What is the penalty, if a defect notice has not been issued, for not beginning remediation work? Nothing. This government is washing its hands of it and where are the MFS? When former deputy premier John Rau launched this audit, alongside him were the MFS. The MFS have the first and last word on this issue. They have been nowhere to be seen. The opposition has in its possession a briefing in March to the minister raising concerns about the way in which cladding was being dealt with. We have not heard from the MFS. I asked the minister a very specific question today: how many of the 28 buildings were sampled, were they all sampled and, of the ones sampled that had cores taken, how many had the black core cladding? He would not answer. Why? Why will the minister not tell the people of South Australia that if they are working or living in one of these buildings they are at risk? What if a tenant wants to break their lease because they are living in a high or extreme-risk building? The minister has washed his hands of all responsibility. That tenant probably cannot break their lease because there are penalties in the lease. The minister is throwing around words like 'good faith'. Good faith is only as good as the legislation that backs it up. If the government will not stand up for these people, who will? If the government will not protect you, who will? If the government will not tell you the outcomes of the audit, who will? The minister is hoping, begging and praying that nothing happens and hiding behind an act of terrorism or a firebug as a reason for not telling people. The opposition accepts the minister's argument of not publicising the addresses of these buildings—fair enough. But how can the government possibly stand without telling each and every individual before they make any public statement? Instead, what they did is they outsourced this to councils and the councils outsourced this to the owners of the buildings. Here is a hypothetical for the government: a landowner is informed that the property they own is high risk. What is the obligation on them, without a defect notice, to tell the person living in or leasing that building? What if that person has 50 employees in that building? The government is relying on a fire system or a sprinkler system or evacuation procedures to say a building is safe. What he is telling the parliament and the people of South Australia is, 'If the building you are in is wrapped in petrol but there is a fire escape and a sprinkler, don't worry.' It is not good enough—not good enough. People have a right to know. God forbid, if anything happens it is on the government. The government have had time to do something and they have sat on their hands. Shame on them. They have sold out the people of South Australia, especially the people living and working in these buildings.