Lol, there might be an opening for him. What I find intriguing...

Lol, there might be an opening for him.

What I find intriguing out of this article is how they draw a comparison between asbestos which was a legal product that we simply didn't have any idea about the side effects of when it started being used compared to an inferior product that doesn't meet building standards and never has.
I can understand the government paying to help get rid of asbestos (I actually worked on this project in Canberra in the early 90's) as it was an approved product that was later found to have detrimental side effects on health and the environment, but this new inferior cladding has come about from builders cost saving and should not become the taxpayers problem to clean it up.

This is the part of the article I'm referring to.

“Similar to the issue of asbestos and loose-fill asbestos, we are dealing with a defective building product.

“Just as the New South Wales government developed a strategy and provided expertise and funding to address asbestos in buildings, we need to allow government to again provide the leadership and legislative solution on this new defective building product.”


Make the perpetrators pay and not Aussie taxpayers, after all these guys probably made larger profits from using cheap sub standard products.

Cheers.