Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery, Senator Arbib. Yesterday the minister told the Senate that he had done ‘everything possible to ensure that adequate safety arrangements have been in place for the home insulation program’. The minister went on to say that risks of fire or electrocution from negligent installations ‘were never raised with me and were never raised at any of the meetings I was involved in’. If the threats of fire and electrocution were not raised at all, despite the minister participating in weekly meetings, what safety issues was he addressing when he did ‘everything possible’ to ensure that adequate safety arrangements were in place for the Home Insulation Program?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable senator for the question. I think you will find if you look at the Hansard, Mr President, that I did not say there were weekly meetings with the environment department. Senator Birmingham said that there were weekly meetings.

Yesterday I did talk a great deal about training. Again I will restate: this was previously a largely unregulated industry with no clear qualifications for those working in it. There were discussions, with regard to training, that occupational health and safety would need to be a part of any training course they developed and rolled out. Also, there was discussion about measures to deal quickly with complaints about poor or shoddy workmanship. That is why a memorandum of understanding was developed with the Housing Industry Association, DEWHA, the environment department and, of course, NESA. This was to ensure jobseekers were able to access the training package that had been developed through the Construction and Property Services Industry Skills Council, along with the CFMEU and industry representatives.

In relation to the training, DEWHA, as the lead department for the development of the Home Insulation Program, contracted the relevant industry skills council, the Construction and Property Services Industry Skills Council, to develop the training package for home insulation workers. This is normal practice for determining the level of training required in particular industries or for specific activities in those industries. This is a role played in Australia by industry skills councils, who are expert bodies made up of industry, trade, employer and employee representatives, as government departments do not have the industry specific experience. These councils have the relevant expertise to develop— (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister now saying that the advice in the Minter Ellison report commissioned by the government that said there were weekly meetings with the parliamentary secretary, as he was then, and advisers, is incorrect? Who did the minister consult with about safety and risk issues to address issues of training so that he could, in his words, do ‘everything possible’ to ensure that adequate safety arrangements were put in place? Did he talk to anybody in industry or rely purely on departmental briefings?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just say again that there were no weekly meetings; there were regular meetings. I urge the coalition to go back to the Hansard. I never said yesterday that there were weekly meetings. Those comments, I think you will find, were made by Senator Birmingham. Can I confirm that in the meetings that did take place, while the discussions did include risk to the Commonwealth and program delivery risk, did not include fire or electrical hazard.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given the tragic deaths of four Australians and 93 house fires, does the minister agree that the safety arrangements he helped put in place were clearly inadequate? Does the minister accept that it was a gross failure of process for such fundamental issues as fire and electrocution, which were identified in two government initiated Minter Ellison reports, to never have been raised in his briefings?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Garrett and his department undertook a risk analysis of the program and responded to the risks that were identified. I am advised that there was a whole suite of work that formed an overall risk assessment for the program that was not confined to one document. Let me just address some of the issues that were raised in the Minter Ellison report. Page 5 of the report identifies risks of safety, house fire and damage and it recommends an effective process for registration of installers. This was done with the National Installer Provider Register launched on the 29 June 2009. Second, it recommended that installers be hooked into Australian standards. This was done with program guidelines requiring adherence to Australian Standard 3999, ‘Thermal insulation of dwellings—Bulk Insulation—Installation requirements’. Page 17 identifies risk: inability to attract enough people to train to become installers. (Time expired)