A perfect storm of shoddy building practices, the fear and ignorance of apartment residents and a history of pro-developer politics means a high-rise building blaze like the Grenfell Tower tragedy in London is almost inevitable in Australia.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
With buildings here cloaked in "millions of square metres" of flammable cladding, similar to that believed to have covered Grenfell Tower, there are concerns about the number of high-rises which could be at risk.
But how could this still be the case more than two years after the Lacrosse building blaze in Melbourne, in which composite cladding was blamed for accelerating the spread of a balcony fire?
Then there was Bankstown blaze five years ago in which one female student died and another was seriously injured when they had to jump from a high window to escape. Is anyone in authority even paying attention?
The Lacrosse deadlock is a perfect example of the conflicting interests between owners, builders and politicians resulting in zero action when an urgent response is required.
In January this year the Victorian Buildings Appeals Board ordered the apartment owners to strip the remaining cladding off the 21-storey building as it presented a significant fire risk.
Yes, that's right, more than two years after the fire, action is ordered. Even so, no timeframe was established so the cladding remains.
Why? Well, the owners are collectively suing the builders for the $15 million it cost for repairs and to replace the cladding. But their case is not helped by Melbourne City Council officials saying the building is safe to be occupied, provided residents remove excessive clutter from their balconies.
Did the residents do so? Not according to Fairfax media reports that also revealed continued overcrowding in the building after the blaze.
It's this kind of narrow self-interest and political impotence that put people's lives at risk. It won't be the apartment owners, city councillors or developers running for their lives if the Lacrosse goes up in flames again. It will be the students forced to live in conditions so overcrowded that they have to store their stuff on balconies.
Reports that complaints of poor management of the Grenfell block in London - including a petition signed by 90 per cent of residents but ignored by authorities - will have a familiar ring to apartment dwellers here who have struggled to navigate the swamp of dodgy developers, incompetent managers, an often impotent consumer protection regime, cost-obsessed apartment owners and bizarre tribunal decisions.
Historically, politicians across Australia have been reluctant to do anything that might deter developers from building new apartment blocks. That has led at various times to the farce of self-certification and the removal of compulsory building insurance from buildings more than three storeys high.
Only last week, the NSW government pushed back the implementation of a defects bond designed to protect buyers of defective apartments. The bond of 2 per cent of a building's cost, which was due to come in on July 1, has been delayed until next year.
At the other end of the scale, there is a "next guy" culture in Strataland where current owners often don't want to know about problems that might cost them money or affect the value of their property - hoping the next guy who buys their unit can foot any bills.
So the incentive for apartment owners to establish if the cladding on their building is safe is severely tempered by the probability that they, and not the developer or builder, will have to pay for its replacement.
For while the law in most states allows builders and developers to walk away from defective projects as little as two years after completion, apartment owners have no choice once the defect has been identified. They must maintain and repair common property regardless of the cost and for as long as the building is standing.
No surprise then that few if any strata committees are rushing to discover if their cladding is the cheap imported variety, even if they are gambling with their or their tenants' lives.
That's one reason Senator Nick Xenophon has called for an audit of buildings to see how many have the suspect cladding.
But what then? Can we really expect apartment owners to raise millions of dollars in special levies to cover the replacement of cladding they bought in the reasonable assumption it was safe?
Do we really expect developers to blithely accept they shouldn't have saved money on cheaper cladding and pay for its replacement? Many will just shut up shop and "phoenix" into another entity, with the same directors, rather than pay up.
If expert opinions on the spread and seriousness of building defects are to be believed, and the collective inertia of strata politics, from strata committees to government ministers, prevails, the next "towering inferno" headlines you read could be about your apartment block.
Jimmy Thomson writes the Flat Chat column for Domain online and edits the flat-chat.com.au advice website.
