House debates

Monday, 4 July 2011

Private Members' Business

Home Insulation Program

12:55 pm

Photo of Paul FletcherPaul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This motion relates to the Gillard government's poor response to complaints about fraud in the Home Insulation Program. I moved this motion in response to, first of all, the appallingly dismissive attitude shown by this government to individual Australians whose homes and apartments have been used to perpetrate fraud under the Home Insulation Program; and, secondly, the failure of the government to provide information to the Australian public generally about instances of fraud under the Home Insulation Program and how cases are being investigated and prosecuted. The Rudd-Gillard government's Home Insulation Program has been a catalogue of maladministration and mismanagement from start to finish. The government, I am sad to say, is maintaining this sorry record of inadequate performance in the way it is attempting to clean up the mess.

Let me therefore outline the unhappy experiences of a number of my constituents in this matter and the conspicuous lack of assistance which they have received from the Gillard government in response. Let me start with the case of Mr Peter Napper, who is chairperson of the body corporate of an apartment complex in Hornsby. Mr Napper received notification from the government that a claim for insulation had been made against the property. However, no authorisation of the installation of insulation had been given by the body corporate. On investigation, it became apparent that the complex had been broken into and that cheap foil insulation had been scattered in the ceilings of a number of apartments in the complex. Significant damage was done in the course of the break-in, in the order of $3½ thousand. Accordingly, after Mr Napper raised his concerns with me, I wrote to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, in early October 2010 seeking assistance in getting a proper inspection of the premises and to ensure that the apparent fraud and trespass were investigated. I received a response from the parliamentary secretary to the minister, well known to my colleague the member for Higgins, on 25 November 2010. In his response he said that three inspections had occurred and more were to be arranged. Subsequent inspections occurred and the foil was removed from the ceilings.

As to the investigations for fraud, let me quote from the parliamentary secretary's letter: 'The information provided by Mr Napper in relation to the way in which the insulation came to be installed at the complex has been referred to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency under the program compliance and audit strategy for further investigation. While the government may not advise Mr Napper of the final outcome of this referral, please be assured that the Australian government will not tolerate fraudulent conduct.' No, thank you very much; we will not be assured. We want to see the evidence, and that is why I have moved this motion.

The letter indicates that 'cases of fraud will be referred to the Australian Federal Police or other authorities for potential prosecution,' but let me repeat: outrageously, Mr Napper is told by the government that he may never be advised of the final outcome of his referral. He is told that he and his affected unit holders may never find out what happened—whether an investigation occurred, whether anybody was charged and prosecuted, whether restitution is sought. None of this is occurring as you would ordinarily expect, and that is very unfortunate. Indeed, extraordinarily, Mr Napper has not yet been interviewed. Nobody has sought to interview him or other residents regarding this issue. The owners are left in the dark. All they are left with is an extra $800 strata levy each to pay for the damage.

Let me turn to the second case, concerning Mr Ray Black, who is a member of the executive committee of a strata complex in Turramurra. His name and signature were used by claimants who can only be assumed to be fraudulent claimants. He advises me his signature was forged, and the assumption is that it was obtained from the notice board in the complex. Mr Black reported the matter to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. He was told, in the now familiar refrain, that they may not get back to him. I have written to the minister asking for full details of how this matter is to be investigated. I have yet to receive a response. Once again, this shows a scandalous disregard for the legitimate interests of persons whose homes have been broken into and taxpayers who have been responsible for paying for this whole sorry mess.

Let me turn to a third area of known problems under the Home Insulation Program: phantom insulations, where installers have claimed for a non-existent house or for work not carried out. I have been assisting Dr and Mrs Nelson of Killara—no relations, I hasten to add, to my predecessor as the member for Bradfield—who received a letter from the department indicating that a claim had been made against their property when in fact no installation had occurred. I know this myself because I have personally investigated the cavity space in their attic and, although I may be a lawyer and not a qualified installer, I can tell when pink batts have been there for over 20 years.

Dr and Mrs Nelson wrote to me, and they said: 'We would particularly like to be advised as to what the Australian government intends to do, if anything, about the recovery of all this money obtained fraudulently and if they intend to pursue and prosecute the persons or companies involved.' I am very sorry to have to say to my constituents that—while they may want to know that—sadly, the Rudd-Gillard government does not want to tell them that. I wrote to the minister on their behalf in April 2010. Response: shrieks of silence. I heard absolutely nothing. I was required to write a follow-up letter, which I did six months later. When did I receive a response? March 2011—a dazzling performance from the parliamentary secretary! And what did the response say? You guessed it: 'Even after completion, the details of investigative activities will normally remain confidential.' So, once again, we have the sorry saga that Australian households are to be kept in the dark about whether fraud investigations involving their own homes have occurred at all and, if the investigations have occurred, what the outcomes are and whether restitution is being sought.

The situation experienced by my constituents more than justifies the action proposed in this motion that the parliament should condemn the Rudd-Gillard government for showing disregard for the interests of Australian householders. This motion also requires the government to provide information to homeowners whose properties have been used to perpetrate fraud. I need hardly remind the chamber that fraud has been perpetrated in myriad ways under the Home Insulation Program, as has been detailed in both the Hawke review and the Auditor-General's review, including early claiming; claiming the maximum rebate irrespective of dwelling size; claiming for dwellings that do not meet the program criteria; households double-dipping between Commonwealth and state or territory programs; removing older insulation to make the customer appear eligible; use of non-compliant materials; and batts being cut in half to spread them further or thrown into the roof without being laid properly.

After my constituents and I failed to get satisfactory answers in the cases I have instanced, I followed up this matter by asking the minister a detailed question on notice seeking information about the Home Insulation Program, including how the government was seeking information about fraud; how many claims of fraud had been received; what the outcomes of investigations had been; what prosecutions had taken place; what claims of restitution had been made and what information was being made available to homeowners who made claims of fraud. The minister failed to answer the questions. He merely referred to his public statement that a forensic audit had taken place. This is nothing more than a whitewash. We have no detailed information. The Australian people deserve to have full answers to these questions. They deserve to know the full scale of this fraud which, need I remind the chamber, they are paying for. We hear from the government that it 'will not tolerate fraudulent conduct'. Let us see the proof.

Let us come to the final point: there is very little information provided about the scope of the forensic audit that was conducted. Yet there is evidence that there are more issues which remain uninvestigated. Just last week, a constituent contacted me with concerns about yet another apartment complex in Hornsby where, on first investigation, it appears that there is a significant problem. Therefore, based upon these instances in my own electorate, which I know are replicated in many other electorates, the coalition believes that the government needs to be much more thorough in its investigation of the fraud which has occurred in the housing insulation program. For that reason, this motion also calls on the government to immediately authorise an additional 50,000 random home inspections from within allocated funds. We need to see some action from this government. It is not good enough to assure us that they will not tolerate fraud—we need to see the proof, because my constituents and many other Australians are suffering and we need to have some assurance that this is being investigated.

Comments

No comments