Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers given by Senator Arbib, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Government Service Delivery, to questions asked by Senators Cormann and Birmingham. I thank Senator Carol Brown for her remarks, but she seems to miss the point. Why would the job training and help programs be necessary if the original program had worked? This was a government program set forth in excruciating detail, with apparently umpteen safeguards and reasons why it would work. Why didn’t it work? The opposition and I call for the minister’s sacking or resignation as the only honourable course left.

The Prime Minister said today, in a couple of places, that he is ultimately responsible for the failure of this program. As is usual with the Prime Minister, these words are very hollow and they are very different from the reality that, unfortunately, everybody else can see. The Prime Minister has not taken the responsibility to sack this incompetent minister. The Prime Minister has not taken responsibility for the deaths of the four victims of this program and apologised to their families. He has not taken responsibility for the hundreds of thousands who are at risk in their homes and apologised to them. He did not even have the guts to stand up in the parliament during the censure motion earlier this week and defend his minister, defend his program or defend himself.

Now we see him making the token effort to wander out into the front courtyard of this place and give the appearance of listening. We also saw him calling in the troops and circling the wagons this morning in a special caucus briefing. Reportedly the Prime Minister advised caucus that they were all in it together. Well, he and Minister Garrett are the people who have lumped the entire Labor Party government in this together, including senators like Senator Carol Brown, who has to stand up in all good faith and defend him. I remind the Prime Minister that he is not a victim in this, even though his ego may be bruised; he and his ministers are, in fact, the perpetrators.

I remind the Senate that there are 24,000 homes with unsafe or substandard installations, 160,000 installations that did not meet product standards, 80,000 installations that did not meet safety standards, 1,000 electrified homes—how would you like that?—and that there have been 93 house fires and the four tragic deaths of the young men. And yet the Prime Minister has the gall to call Mr Garrett a first-class minister and a very effective minister. Those endorsements came within the last week. This is despite the fact that the minister received over 21 individual warnings over safety and the reports of the four deaths.

Despite the minister’s officials receiving a Minter Ellison report exposing deep concerns in April last year, and a further risk register from Minter Ellison with a clear warning to delay the program for three months to correct the problems, he claims he did not know anything about it until 11 days ago. The Prime Minister’s own officials were warned, in February 2009, but he claims that he did not know anything about that either—a very convenient lapse in ministerial procedure across two departments! This is a ridiculous farce being perpetrated by the Prime Minister and the minister for the environment.

The facts are that as early as 9 March last year the minister was warned in writing by the National Electrical and Communications Association that the program was a disaster waiting to happen. In late April last year he was warned by territory and state ministers that this program was a disaster waiting to happen and that if it went ahead in that form there would be serious risk to property and life. On 14 October last year, we had the first death—and it goes on and on and on. The minister received warnings from the Master Electricians association, the ACTU, the New South Wales minister and Labor government ministers but he finally acted only in February.

Now, all of this was entirely preventable, yet the minister took no action to reduce the risks. In fact, he bragged about how wonderfully successful the program was. It beggars belief that both of these men were unaware of at least some of these warnings. So why did the program proceed? Why did the minister not demand further information before authorising it and how is it possible for the minister to be so callous? This minister has comprehensively failed to undertake the due diligence demanded or to heed the warnings. In either case, the result must be the same, because failure to do so is grounds for his termination.

Question agreed to.