It could take years to find out decisively what combination of risks led to the deadly Grenfell Tower fire that killed at least 58 people in London, but some early signs should have Australia worried.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
With the benefit of hindsight, there were many problems that made residents vulnerable if something caught alight: they had only one internal staircase to escape by, were advised to stay put during a fire and some reported not hearing alarms.
Victoria's Planning Minister Richard Wynne said last week a fire of the same magnitude could not happen in Australia because its building codes were too good.
The uncomfortable fact that many of Australia's buildings are fitted with the same aluminium cladding identified as one of the main aggravators for the Grenfell Tower fire should shake the country out of any such complacency.
Loose ends abound when it comes to controlling the material's use in Australia and it's not clear whether governments - state, territory and federal - are across just how prevalent it is.
In Melbourne, the Lacrosse tower that caught fire three years ago remains covered in highly flammable aluminium polyethylene cladding, the same composite reportedly used on the London tower, even after its removal was ordered in January because it was deemed a serious risk.
The United Firefighters Union says hundreds of buildings at 25m or higher in Melbourne have the same cladding used on the tower, or similar.
To its credit, the Victorian government was the only one to conduct an audit after the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union wrote to state, territory and federal leaders in 2015 urging them to inspect buildings for flammable cladding.
Queensland last month tightened its regulation of flammable cladding, letting regulators stop the sale or installation of unsafe products, and compel developers to remove them, even if a building is complete.
Western Australia is planning to check government-owned buildings, and the Grenfell Tower fire has shocked South Australia into an audit for Adelaide.
Governments need to learn the size of the problem if they're to know whether regulations aimed at limiting cheap cladding are working. A national audit of buildings identified as likely to be fitted with the material would remedy this.
In Canberra, the ACT government's admission that flammable cladding similar to that at the centre of the London tower blaze was widely used in the city's buildings should begin a conversation about how well it is monitoring and limiting the product.
While developers and building owners may complain at having to remove any flammable cladding, the law in this case needs to be weighted in favour of occupant safety, and not cost, should the material combine with other structural problems to become dangerous.
Whether the federal government will consider import restrictions for the product will depend partly on how much burden other players - states and territories, and developers - want to bear in preventing a similar tragedy.
At this stage, all options should be on the table until the country knows more.
