[+] ‘Inadequate’ Response to Flammable Cladding Crisis

Reforms to clear New South Wales buildings of flammable cladding have been stymied by inconsistency and confusion and, after four years, information on the safety of known affected buildings is inadequate and unreliable. A scathing auditor-general report handed down on Wednesday also found the implementation of the reforms by the NSW government and its Cladding Taskforce had been too slow. Three years after Melbourne's Lacrosse tower blaze and within weeks of the fatal inferno fuelled by flammable cladding in London’s Grenfell Tower in 2017, the government introduced a 10-point plan —including the establishment of the taskforce . But according to auditor-general Margaret Crawford, while it appeared thorough in identifying affected buildings “the process of clearing buildings with combustible external cladding has been inconsistent”. “On balance, it seems likely that this multi-pronged and multi-source approach has resulted in the identification of most—though probably not all … buildings with [flammable] cladding,” she said in the report. Specifically, she noted the process of identifying affected NSW government-owned buildings “does not appear to have had the same rigour and focus as shown by the consent authorities”. “In the more than four years since the NSW government's 10-point plan was announced, around 40 per cent of the approximately 1200 buildings potentially with combustible external cladding brought to the attention of councils have been cleared by either rectification or being found not to pose an unacceptable fire risk. “Also, around 50 per cent of 66 NSW government-owned buildings with combustible external cladding and almost 90 per cent of 137 buildings with combustible external cladding with [the department of planning and environment] as consent authority have been cleared or remediation is under way.” ▲ NSW auditor-general Margaret Crawford. In her findings, Crawford noted it had taken the taskforce until September 2019—two years after it was established—before “a model process and other detailed advice was provided to local councils to encourage consistent processes”. The report indicated advice should have been “more timely” on two key issues—the use of experts in the process of assessing and remediating existing buildings, and the implementation of the Fair Trading Commissioner’s product use ban on aluminium composite panels with polyethylene content 30 per cent or greater. It found the application of the product use ban had caused confusion and resulted in inconsistent practices. “Depending on the assessed fire risk of an individual building, a council or government department could decide to allow cladding with more than 30 per cent polyethylene in its core, or alternatively to require remediation of cladding with less than 30 per cent polyethylene.” As a result, some buildings may need to be reassessed. “Clarifying the application of the product use ban may require consent authorities and building owners to revisit how some buildings have been cleared,” the report said. Also, it said there were no compliance or enforcement strategies or policies for the product use ban. ▲ The report has suggested several deadlines to bring the response forward. “Moreover, communication of the ban by [the department of customer service] was not underpinned by a documented communications strategy or plan. “This is despite the importance of the product use ban to meeting the NSW government’s commitment in its 10-point plan to ‘ensure there is a comprehensive building product safety scheme that prevents the dangerous use of combustible external cladding products’.” Significantly, the auditor general also found that information management by the taskforce was “inadequate to provide a high-level of assurance that all known affected buildings have been given proper attention”. “While most high-risk buildings have likely been identified, information management is not sufficiently robust to reliably track all buildings through the process from identification, through to risk assessment and, where necessary, remediation.” Additionally, Crawford said a large number of buildings— estimated to be more than 500—assessed as low-risk had not been deemed a priority of the taskforce “despite those buildings potentially posing unacceptable fire risks”. "There is no forward plan for any action by [the taskforce] on these buildings. “Any level of combustible external cladding poses a residual risk to buildings, and some further action may be warranted,” she concluded. ▲ The NSW opposition said the response had clearly been ‘slow and haphazard’. As part of the auditor-general’s recommendations, the taskforce has been asked to develop an action plan to address buildings with flammable cladding deemed as low-risk. She also has recommended that by October the confusion surrounding the application of the product use ban be addressed by ensuring councils and government departments have risk assessments conducted for existing buildings with combustible external cladding. Also, it is recommended by December the taskforce’s information systems be improved to ensure there is an accurate, timely and complete history of how buildings with combustible external cladding have been identified, assessed and, where necessary, remediated. A review of the auditor-general's report is being undertaken by NSW Fair Trading Minister Eleni Petinos but she has indicated it would not be an overnight fix. NSW shadow minister for better regulation and innovation Courtney Houssos said the findings were damning and showed the government’s response to the potentially deadly issue had been “slow and haphazard”. She said the government had tried to push off control and co-ordination of the implementation of its reforms to councils and shuffle it between departments. "That’s meant that the response has lacked that key central co-ordination that’s required. "So what is clear is that the government still five years after the Grenfell Tower tragedy still has not identified the scale of the problem," Houssos said. “The majority of NSW buildings with dangerous flammable cladding still have dangerous flammable cladding on them and that includes 50 per cent of the government’s own buildings that hadn’t had it removed. "And they still don’t have a definitive list of where that dangerous flammable cladding is." You are currently experiencing The Urban Developer Plus (TUD+), our premium membership for property professionals. Click here to learn more.

[+] ‘Inadequate’ Response to Flammable Cladding Crisis

Get the full story.

Nature-Positive Housing Model Put to the Test in South Australia

From Upzoning to Delivery: The Hard Reforms Coming in 2026

Architecture’s AI Shift: Faster Design, Same Humans

Global Capital Sets Sights on Australia’s Alternatives

Workers Laid Off Despite Looming Skilled Labour Shortages

Melbourne Long Lunch | Panel discussion with Tim Price, Jeremy McLeod, Katya Crema & Anne Michaels

A fireside chat with Troy Daffy | Managing Director, Silverstone Developments

Brisbane Long Lunch | Panel discussion with Rob Comiskey, Frank Licastro, Steve Laffey & Alexandra Stuart-Robertson

Sydney Long Lunch | Panel discussion with Jamie Durie, Jennifer Macquarie & Michael Romano

Too Big: VCAT Refuses North Melb Neighbourhood Centre

Games Prompt Wentworth to Push Go on Hamilton Precinct

WA’s $250m End-of-Nullarbor Freight Hub Moves Ahead

Level 33 Files Dual-Tower Proposal for Homebush

2026 Developer Outlook Lunch | Melbourne

2026 Developer Outlook Lunch | Brisbane

2026 Developer Outlook Lunch | Sydney