Deadly rollout cleared by lawyer

THE top lawyer involved in the Rudd government’s home insulation jobs scheme rated the risk of injury or death as “unlikely’’.

THE top lawyer involved in the Rudd government’s home insulation jobs scheme rated the risk of injury or death as “unlikely’’ in the rollout of the program, ­despite being warned by experts there was a good chance it could spark a tragedy.

David Hoitink, a senior legal adviser for the program that killed four installers, prepared a “Legal Risk Plan” in May 2009, before its launch.

In evidence before the royal commission into the program, which also caused 100 house fires, Mr Hoitink said he had believed that the risk of installer injury or death would be “less than unlikely”.

“The No 1 risk identified in this document is the possibility of an installer injuring or killing people in the course of ­installing installation,” Mr Hoitink’s statement to the inquiry read.

“The risk that an installer would injure or kill someone in the course of performing the ­installation was assessed as ­unlikely, although the consequence would be major.

“Property damage was ­assessed as a more likely risk to householders.’’

Mr Hoitink issued the plan despite a month earlier hearing warnings during an advisory group workshop that there was a “high likelihood’’ of death or injury in the rollout.

Under cross-examination, Mr Hoitink said he believed the warning covered a range of ­issues in the rollout, and not just the occupational health and safety risks he was assessing.

He told the hearing he also believed the risk of an installer causing injury or death had been addressed through skill competency requirements.

The royal commission also heard yesterday how an Insulation Australia board member, Warrick Batt, had warned the then environment minister, Peter Garrett, about the risk of house fires before the announcement of the home insulation program.

Mr Batt, the managing director of insulation company Autex, said he outlined the risk in a letter on February 4, 2009, after Mr Garrett visited one of the company’s manufacturing plants in New Zealand.

The only response he received was a courtesy letter from Mr Garrett four months later, he said.

“Implications of poor installation can be far more serious than just a reduction in performance; failure to follow installation standards in older homes may place occupants at severe risk of fire due to overheating of electrical wiring and lighting,’’ Mr Batt said in his ­letter.

“While installation may be limited to tradespeople, an education of the risks of poor installation for all parties should be considered.’’

Mr Batt said he was later invited to attend the first industry consultation meeting about the rollout.

He said that it was not a “true consultation’’ with industry and that despite concerns being raised about the program, the government did not appear to listen.

“I felt that the government had already decided how it would roll out the program and it was just going through the motions of a consultation,’’ he said in his statement.

Mr Batt will resume his evidence at the royal commission today.