Electrical Safety

5.2.1 One of the most important of these risks, in the context of the HIP at least, concerned electrical safety.

5.2.2 Electrical risks take several forms in the environment of roof voids. There may be a pre-existing electrical problem which causes the roof (or part of it) to be live. In the case of Mr Barnes that is what is likely to have occurred and to have caused his death.10 _{The problems might come from past imperfect compliance with the Wiring}

Rules, home owners having undertaken their own electrical work or indeed a licenced electrical contractor not having performed work to the requisite standard. Or the risk might be as simple as the wiring being very old and in a deteriorated state.11

5.2.3 Risks of these kinds might be avoided by an inspection of the roof void being undertaken by a licensed electrician before a person enters it to install insulation. That, however, involves time and cost. Another way in which such a risk might be managed is to turn off the source of electrical supply to the home before the installation takes place. Doing so might avoid a person receiving a shock from live sources in the roof void. But it would mean that the installer has no power available to them for lighting and for the use of any power tools. In some cases installers needed to have power available, including so that exhaust fans could be used.12

Turning off the power might reduce or eliminate an immediate risk of electrocution, but it poses problems for ventilation using exhaust fans and increases the risk of heat exhaustion.13 _{Another risk exists because opening (i.e. disabling) an electrical circuit}

from the home’s switchboard may not make the circuits in the roof safe. The mains power may enter through the roof void, so even the main switch on the circuit board will disable only the circuit from that point on.14

5.2.4 Even if power is turned off while the installation of insulation is occurring, it does nothing to protect those who might later enter the roof cavity. They would, unless they also turned off the power, be exposed to whatever electrical risks existed, whether a long pre-existing problem or one to which the installation itself had given rise.15

5.2.5 Another kind of risk is that which is inherent in the lower safety protections which apply by reason of the roof void being a place in which cables are less likely to be disturbed. Electrical cables which are not encased in conduit or secured behind cavities are much more susceptible to being penetrated by, for example, a staple than would be the case if they were better shielded.16 _{The installation of foil insulation in particular seems to have}

involved the use of staples: metal staples in the first place and later, when the problem was expressly identified, plastic staples. But even the use of plastic staples does not entirely remove the risk. If a plastic staple is placed through foil and a live electrical cable, there remains a risk that the foil will make contact with the live cable and thus pose a risk of electrocution.17

10 QIC.001.001.0001, 43.

11 Statement of G Rashleigh at [39], STA.001.011.0001, 26 March 2014. He suggested some 30% of roofs had wiring dating back to before 1945. See also Transcript (8 April 2014) 2267-2268 (G Rashleigh).

12 Transcript (8 April 2014) 2244 (G Rashleigh); Transcript (15 April 2014) 3113 (M Hannam). 13 Transcript (15 April 2014) 3113 (M Hannam).

14 Transcript (19 May 2014) 5097 (M Richards). 15 Transcript (19 May 2014) 5120 (A Leverton).

16 See Australian/New Zealand Standard 3000:2007 Electrical installations (known as the Australian/New Zealand Wiring Rules), clause 1.5.4. Measures include protection by barriers or enclosures requiring the use of a key or tool to remove, obstacles and placing out of reach.

5.2.6 It has long been a requirement to install wiring systems so as to protect them against mechanical damage.18 _{The 1931 Wiring Rules, clause 1254(f), required for example:}

Where run in roofs across the ceiling joists, the conductors shall be attached to the sides of wooden battens not smaller than 1 [inch] square, and where laid parallel with the joists, they shall be attached to the sides of the joists. In neither case shall the clips or saddles be more than 18 [inches] apart.19

5.2.7 In the Wiring Rules, it is provided that, in the case of damage by impact, protection must be by one or any combination of:

5.2.7.1 mechanical characteristics of the wiring system; 5.2.7.2 the location selected for it;

5.2.7.3 provision of additional local or general mechanical protection.20

5.2.8 The Wiring Rules deem as likely to be disturbed (and therefore as warranting a higher degree of protection) wiring which is installed in ceiling spaces having an access space exceeding 0.6m high.21 _{If cables in such locations may reasonably be expected to be}

subject to mechanical damage, they must be ‘adequately protected’.22 _{They should also}

be supported at ‘suitable intervals’ to prevent undue sagging.23

5.2.9 Provision is made in the Wiring Rules for various specific scenarios as to the location of cables. If, for example, cables pass through a structural member (such as a ceiling joist), they must be protected if concealed within 50mm from the surface of a wall or ceiling and if located more than 150mm from internal wall to wall or wall-to-ceiling corners.24 _This

protection must be achieved by one of the following methods: 5.2.9.1 adequate mechanical protection to prevent damage; or 5.2.9.2 an earthed metallic armouring, screen, covering or enclosure; or

5.2.9.3 use of an RCD (residual current device or ‘safety switch’) with a maximum rated residual current of 30mA in the circuit.25

5.2.10 This last option (that an RCD be installed), has been required for some, but not all, circuits in domestic dwellings since the 1991 edition of the Wiring Rules. However, a relatively recent addition to the Wiring Rules in 2007 extended the RCD requirement to all circuits.26

5.2.11 Wiring systems must not be installed through any space formed between roofing material and its immediate supporting member.27

18 Australian/New Zealand Standard 3000:2007 Electrical installations (known as the Australian/New Zealand Wiring Rules), clause 3.1.2.

19 Australian Standard Rules Covering the Essential Requirements and Minimal Standards Governing Electrical Installations for Buildings, Structures and Premises CC. 1-1931, clause 1254(f).

20 Australian/New Zealand Standard 3000:2007 Electrical installations (known as the Australian/New Zealand Wiring Rules), clause 3.3.2.6.

21 Australian/New Zealand Standard 3000:2007 Electrical installations (known as the Australian/New Zealand Wiring Rules), clause 3.9.3.3.

22 Australian/New Zealand Standard 3000:2007 Electrical installations (known as the Australian/New Zealand Wiring Rules), clause 3.9.4.1.

23 Australian/New Zealand Standard 3000:2007 Electrical installations (known as the Australian/New Zealand Wiring Rules), clause 3.9.3.3.

24 Australian/New Zealand Standard 3000:2007 Electrical installations (known as the Australian/New Zealand Wiring Rules), clause 3.9.4.2.

25 Australian/New Zealand Standard 3000:2007 Electrical installations (known as the Australian/New Zealand Wiring Rules), clause 3.9.4.4.

26 It was included in the Australian/New Zealand Standard 3000:2007 Electrical installations (known as the Australian/New Zealand Wiring Rules) by Amendment No 1 to that version of the Rules (effective from July 2009). 27 Australian/New Zealand Standard 3000:2007 Electrical installations (known as the Australian/New Zealand

5.2.12 There are obvious differences between wiring in a ceiling space and wiring in the

habitable areas of a home. In the latter case, wiring is commonly contained within a cavity wall, or placed out of reach by running cables under the floor or in the ceiling. Where that is not the case, cables are often enclosed in conduit, which is secured to the ceiling or wall in such a way as to make its removal difficult, and to require the use of a tool to do so.

5.2.13 Mr Malcolm Richards, the Chief Executive Officer of Master Electricians Australia gave evidence about the effect of the Wiring Rules and the practices in giving effect to them for cabling in ceiling spaces. That evidence was to the effect that it was good practice (and consistent with the Wiring Rules) to use timber either side of wires where they cross joists or trusses so as to protect them from mechanical disturbance.28 _{He said this has been}

the case for very many years.29

5.2.14 Regrettably, however, good practice is not necessarily universal practice. The evidence of Mr Graeme Doreian and Mr Tim Renouf suggested that the requirements of the Wiring Rules and the demands of good practice are often flouted.30

5.2.15 Regrettably, however, good practice is not necessarily universal practice. The evidence of Mr Graeme Doreian and Mr Tim Renouf suggested that the requirements of the Wiring Rules and the demands of good practice are often flouted.31

5.2.16 Mr Doreian, a building energy consultant, took an active interest in the proceedings of their Commission. He provided several submissions to the effect that the electrocutions occurred because of a failure by electricians in the past to comply with the Wiring Rules (2007) or the previous Rules by laying unprotected cabling across the ceiling joists.32

5.2.17 If a cable, when it has to cross a joist, is protected, or if the cable were made to pass through the joist, it is true that the chances of a staple piercing the cable under the foil is reduced but not eliminated. It follows that, even if good practice were adopted and the Wiring Rules were followed to the letter, doing so would offer no absolute protection for the cable from being pierced by a staple. It would, however, serve to make the cables more prominent and therefore more readily observable by, for example, an installer of Reflective Foil Laminate (RFL) insulation. Stapling through cables, in these circumstances, is therefore less likely to occur.

5.2.18 Mr Doreian was not alone in his condemnation of the work of electrical contractors, particularly in the laying of cables across joists above the ceiling. One retired engineer, who did not wish to be identified, told the Commission that he perceived a drop in standards from when electrical contractors could certify their own work, rather than have their work inspected by a qualified inspector. Other electrical contractors also contacted the Commission to offer their own observations. Their input is greatly appreciated. 5.2.19 I accept that in a (perhaps large) number of houses to be insulated under the HIP, the

existing wiring did not comply with AS 3000:2007 or its predecessor regulations. For that, the electrical contracting industry must take responsibility. If the electrical wiring had been in accordance with the relevant standards it is possible that three of the young men (Fuller, Barnes and Sweeney) would not have died.

28 Transcript (19 May 2014) 5069, 5102-5103 (M Richards). 29 Transcript (19 May 2014) 5069, 5103 (M Richards). 30 Transcript (19 May 2014) 5069, 5102-5103 (M Richards).

31 Transcript (15 April 2014) 3025 (G Doreian); Transcript (15 April 2014) 3025 (T Renouf). 32 See, for example, DOR.002.001.0001, 1; DOR.002.001.0002, 1- 19; DOR.002.001.0025, 1-2;

DOR.002.001.0027, 1; DOR.002.001.0028, 1- 19; DOR.002.001.0047, 1-3; DOR.002.001.0060, 1; DOR.002.001.0050, 1- 7; DOR.002.001.0061, 1-3.

5.2.20 However, the focus of my inquiry is on the actions taken by the Australian Government. I recommend, at the conclusion of this Report, that a thorough review be undertaken of the Australian Standards, both pertaining to the installation of insulation, and electrical wiring issues in ceiling voids. At the time the HIP was designed, it appears that no engagement of the electrical industry was undertaken. The officers of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (and other agencies) did not appear to appreciate the risk of non-compliant wiring in ceiling voids. In fact there is a long history of laying wiring across the joists.33 _{The presence of non-compliant wiring brought with it at least two}

consequences. First, those who were designing the HIP ought to have ascertained whether the presence of such wiring was likely. If it was, then steps should have been mandated to make sure, as far as was reasonably possible, that it was safe for an insulation contractor to enter the ceiling space. Secondly, if there was likely to be a prevalence of non-compliant wiring, it makes the decision to permit RFLs to be used in the Program much more difficult to understand. The conductivity of foil is the added risk of that product. Whilst it may safely be used by competent and experienced installers, as a number of users of that product have told the Commission, particularly where no added risk is presented by the state of the electrical wiring, it was a very different scenario for inexperienced installers, such as Mr Fuller and Mr Sweeney. To encourage inexperienced young people to work in an environment where there was a risk of defective electrical wiring, and allow them to install conductive material was, in my opinion, grossly negligent. It is no answer for the Australian Government to say that it was the responsibility of those young people’s employers to protect them. The HIP, as I discuss later in this Report, encouraged participation from a wide spectrum of people and took no steps to ascertain their experience in installing particular types of foil, or indeed their experience in installing insulation at all.

5.2.21 Both Mr Doreian and other electrical contractors spoken to by the Commission recommended an inspection by an electrician prior to the installation of insulation. Obviously, such a requirement would have added another level of cost and potentially would have led to delays in installations being carried out. That would have been contrary to the stimulus objectives of the HIP.

5.2.22 The effect of the Wiring Rules, therefore, understood in light of Mr Richards’ evidence (which I accept) can be summarised as follows:

5.2.22.1 wiring in parts of ceiling spaces less than 0.6 metres in height are subject to no special rules about how they must be protected from damage or interference;

5.2.22.2 for parts of ceiling spaces higher than 0.6 metres, wiring must be protected from mechanical damage and impact and from undue sagging. But there are many ways by which this end might be achieved. Good practice for some considerable time seems to have been to place timber on either side of wires crossing trusses or joists so as to prevent, mainly, a foot from displacing the cable;

5.2.22.3 overall, the requirements for cabling in ceilings are, quite understandably, not as stringent as in the commonly inhabited areas of the home;

5.2.22.4 no rule or practice required that cables in ceiling spaces be protected so as to prevent them being penetrated by a staple;

5.2.22.5 if, however, good practice and the Wiring Rules were obeyed, the chance of a cable being pierced by a staple would be much reduced;

5.2.22.6 this has been the case for some considerable time.34 33 Transcript (19 May 2014) 5069 (M Richards).

5.2.23 I take up this topic again in a later Chapter of this Report in which I deal with the question of whether reflective foil sheeting ought to have been permitted under the HIP.

5.2.24 There do exist other means by which the risks can be minimised and even avoided. 5.2.25 The wiring circuits of homes are usually fitted with some device designed to stop the flow

of excess electricity in the circuit in the case of some extra or additional load being placed upon it or in the event of a short-circuit fault caused by insulation failure. Many people are familiar with fuses (the early forms of these). Later, circuit breakers were widely used. However fuses and circuit breakers do not readily provide protection against electrocution which can result from quite low electrical current (earth leakage current) flow through the body. Thus, earth leakage type circuit breakers were devised and even more recently, Residual Current Devices (RCD). RCDs are more sensitive protective devices that do provide good protection against electric shock and electrocution.

5.2.26 The use of such devices has changed over time as technology has improved, and as there have been unfortunate experiences of death and injury from which the body of general and specialist knowledge has improved.