Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Home Insulation Program (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 2011 is a response to a program which has seen, amongst many other things, 200 house fires, approximately 1,500 electrified roofs and a defect rate of 24 per cent across the 150,000 houses that have been inspected to date. That is an extraordinary level of waste that is almost unparalleled in the history of Australian budgetary programs. There must be a judicial commission of inquiry into the scope, the scale, the fraud, the failures, the warnings and the inability to act that has been associated with four tragic losses. This program has been a profound failure. When we heard most recently from the government it acknowledged not only a 24 per cent failure rate across more than 150,000 houses, but also that more than one million homes had yet to be checked. There was no estimate of the rate of failure or of defects in the insulation which had been installed in those one million homes.

I will briefly set out three things in relation to this bill: first, the need; second, the structure; and, third, the broader pattern of failure which necessitates more than ever a full judicial commission of inquiry into the failures of the Home Insulation Program. Let me deal, then, with the need. The program failed on many fronts. It failed to deliver the savings which were expected. We were told that it would lead to 50 million tonnes of emissions reduction between now and 2020. In fact, the government's own reviews have indicated that it will be approximately one-third of that. By its very raison d'être, the program has failed. Much more significantly, as an exercise in government probity, as an exercise in government management and, most importantly, as an exercise in government protection of people's homes and safety, the Home Insulation Program was a manifest failure of each and every aspect of the duty and responsibilities of a modern government.

This was a $2.5 billion program, of which $1.5 billion was spent installing insulation. But what we have seen is that 50,000 foil insulated homes were subject to safety checks and had either safety switches installed or had their foil insulation ripped out. Only a very small percentage of homes were not dealt with in either of these ways and that was primarily because the householders could not be contacted. This program led to 50,000 homes immediately being subject to the work effectively being scrapped at massive cost to the taxpayer. This program led to 150,000 homes being inspected at massive cost to the taxpayer. The program had a 24 per cent defect rate. Almost one in four houses was found to have been improperly treated and the installation improperly carried. That is an extraordinary rate of failure. We do not know what the rate of failure is for the remaining one million homes. The government claims that it targeted the highest risk homes first. Let us assume that is the case. Is the failure rate in the remaining one million homes 15 per cent, 10 per cent or even a mere eight per cent, or 80,000 homes? These are profound and large numbers because they represent tens of thousands of Australian householders who have been put at risk. We were mocked and ridiculed when, throughout July, August and September of 2009, we warned of each and every risk which came to pass. We called for an Auditor-General's review of the program over 27 August and 28 August 2009. The government rejected it. The government specifically wrote to the Auditor-General to indicate that no such review was necessary. The warnings from the opposition were clear and clarion and were out there for all to hear, but they were rejected by the government.

But more importantly still—and this is the reason why there must be a judicial commission of inquiry—the government received in excess of 20 warnings from its department and agencies, industry and the public about the risks associated with the program. As early as 18 February 2009 senior officials in the Prime Minister's office and the Office of the Coordinator-General received express and explicit warnings about the risk of electrocution, fires, cost overruns and poor quality in the program. The department recommended that the program be carried out over eight years, but it was the ministers, the inner core of this government—the current Prime Minister, the previous Prime Minister, the finance minister of the time, the current Treasurer, and the now-promoted education minister—who argued that they should override the departmental advice to proceed cautiously without haste and with maximum focus on safety. Those ministers have never been held to account, have never been subject to scrutiny and were not the subject of the Attorney-General's inquiry because that is beyond the remit of the Attorney-General. Those ministers were not given the accountability and responsibility tests which Westminster governance should require. So against that background of express, clear and manifest ministerial failure—which should have seen the termination of the commission of the then minister for the environment and now minister for education—we have seen a full failure of Westminster government to ensure that accountability and its associated principles have been put into place.

That is why this bill would inquire directly into what warnings and advice on the Home Insulation Program were received by ministers from industry, from Commonwealth agencies, from state and territory agencies and even from unions, not to mention members of the public and the opposition. The bill seeks inquiry into any decisions made by a minister to reject such warnings or advice, most notably, the five-year recommendation for a rollout, which was overlooked with tragic consequences in terms of the rate of failure under this program. It inquires into what the Home Insulation Program was required of in terms of Commonwealth offices and agencies, state and territory governments and contractors. These pieces of information are fundamental, should be in the public domain, but have never been released into the public domain. The ministerial process has been silent, it has been hidden and it has been done so in a way which has intentionally denied scrutiny, accountability and responsibility of the very people who demanded haste over safety and who have ignored the warnings of industry, the department, unions, the public and the opposition.

I finally put in context the need for this bill. The Master Electricians Australia, who warned of the risk of further fatalities on 16 October 2009, have warned of the same program risks and safety issues in relation to the government's set-top box program as part of the set-top box budget. Those people were ignored and shunned, but they were absolutely correct and they have made similar warnings now. Today we see that the other independent agency, the National Electrical and Communications Association, who also warned of risks of fire, fraud and fatalities under the Home Insulation Program, has pointed to the same risks under the government's hands-off approach to the Solar Rebate Program.

Both organisations, which warned of risks under the Home Insulation Program, which were ignored but were subsequently proven right, currently have extant warnings in relation to the repeated failures, which have now been imported into other government programs. The Home Insulation Program was also a tragic failure. It is time for accountability. This bill must be passed.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is extremely disappointed that the opposition has decided to move this bill in the House. For the second time in six months it has tried to hijack the good work that is being done by closing down the Home Insulation Program and by distracting the government with what can only be called a vexatious bill.

In November last year the opposition tried to derail the government's safety inspection programs by forcing us to prematurely release information on safety inspection results. Although this attempt failed in the House, it was an unnecessary distraction for the government when we needed to be focused completely on providing safety to householders.

Now, once again, the opposition wants to distract and obstruct the government in doing its core business by imposing a commission of inquiry to investigate the program. This is despite the fact that there have already been three major investigations into the program that have been completely supported by government. I will get to those reports soon.

I would like to say right upfront that the government accepts that there were significant design and implementation problems with the Home Insulation Program. We have never walked away from this fact. Since the program was closed in February last year the government has worked extremely hard in dealing with the complex array of issues involved with its closure.

I also want to reinforce how much the government regrets that four young Australians tragically died while installing insulation under the program. These young men were: Matthew Fuller, on 14 October 2009. He was 25 years old and the incident occurred in Meadowbrook, Brisbane; on 18 November 2009, Reuben Barnes, who was 16 years old. The incident occurred in Rockhampton in Queensland; on 21 November 2009, Marcus Wilson, 19 years old. The incident occurred on 20 November in St Clair, New South Wales; on 4 February 2010, Mitchell Sweeney, 22 years old. The incident occurred in Millaa Millaa, North Queensland. I could not possibly imagine how difficult it must continue to be for the friends and families of these four young men in dealing with these tragic losses. The families quite rightly want answers to what happened to their loved ones. To this end, I am aware that these deaths have been the subject of investigations by relevant state bodies. In the case of Reuben Barnes and Matthew Fuller, the companies that employed them have been prosecuted under the relevant state laws. The court hearing into the death of Mitchell Sweeney also remains ongoing. I am also aware that the deaths of these four young men may be the subject of coronial inquiries. To assist in that process the government has agreed to provide funding for legal representation of the families of those men. It is hoped that the completion of all of these investigations and inquiries will bring some peace to the families involved.

As I said previously, the government is focused on getting on with the job of remediating the Home Insulation Program through our safety inspection programs. The member for Flinders' latest attempt to thwart the government's work is simply yet another political stunt from the opposition, which they have tried and failed with before. The government has been totally transparent in reviewing the Home Insulation Program. We have supported a number of inquiries into the program since its closure, including the Auditor-General's report into the Home Insulation Program, an independent Review of the administration of the Home Insulation Program conducted by Dr Allan Hawke and a Senate inquiry.

Through the last 12 months there has been a distinct pattern in how the opposition deals with issues relating to the Home Insulation Program. Our experience is that the opposition calls for a review, and when they do not get the answer they want they call for another. However, it might be worthwhile just to revisit what some of these reports did investigate and what they actually found to demonstrate that a comprehensive review of the Home Insulation Program has been undertaken.

Following the closure of the program in February last year the government appointed the well-respected former public servant Dr Allan Hawke to do a review of the administrative and design aspects of the Home Insulation Program. The Hawke report found that rapid rollout, wide access to the program for both householders and entrants to the installation industry and ease of transactions were key drivers for program design and implementation. Hawke found that this was appropriate given the key objective of economic stimulus but that it was unreasonable to conclude that a program of this size operating within a largely unregulated industry could ever be delivered without risk. Hawke also found that it was unreasonable to conclude that all of the issues that emerged from the program could have been anticipated or that they were easily remediable. A stronger management structure, earlier implementation of the audit and compliance program and better targeting of compliance effort early in the program could have mitigated the risks to more acceptable levels, but never to zero. Hawke then found that safety and quality risks in the program could not be fully abated and recommended that the government should reconsider proceeding with the insulation component of the REBS. Accordingly, the government accepted this advice in April last year and did not proceed with the new program.

The Auditor-General compiled a report in response to a request by the then Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, on 3 March 2010. The National Audit Office identified significant deficiencies in the administration of the program, particularly the risk management practices applied by the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. The main issues identified included ineffective an untimely risk management processes by the department, an overwhelming volume of claims and installations that impacted on effective program delivery, little proactive oversight and response to emerging problems by the department's executive and a lack of appropriately skilled staff to implement the program. Importantly, the report did not make adverse findings against ministers, including the former Minister for Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett. In relation to Mr Garrett, the ANAO found that DEWHA's advice to the minister was overly optimistic and contained factual errors.

Despite what the opposition has claimed publicly, I am advised that the Auditor-General had access to all cabinet-in-confidence material when conducting his investigation. Although the opposition is solely motivated by scoring cheap political points, it simply cannot credibly claim that a totally open and transparent review has not been carried out. Incredibly, though, the opposition's main argument for some time in justifying a judicial inquiry is that the government has impeded the Auditor-General from running a fully independent inquiry.

I would just like to remind the opposition what the Auditor-General actually does. The Auditor-General is the independent watchdog for the Commonwealth government. He sets his own terms of reference. He structures his inquiries as he chooses and has extensive powers of access to government documents, including cabinet documents. Such claims that somehow the government has restricted the Auditor-General in how he pursued his investigation of the Home Insulation Program are quite frankly baseless and scandalous. In addition to the Hawke and ANAO reports, the government also fully supported the Senate inquiry into the Home Insulation Program, making available departmental officers and hundreds of pages of documents for the committee to make its deliberations.

What I have described today clearly demonstrates that the government has been completely transparent in reviewing the Home Insulation Program. The Hawke review and the Auditor-General's report both came out with similar findings. The government has clearly accepted those findings. Most importantly, both were comprehensive reports that were targeted at the right issues. The problem though is that the opposition is not interested in what these reports have found. The opposition feels cheated in that the findings it wanted were not identified by either Allan Hawke or the Auditor-General. So in a fit of pique the opposition is now desperately running around looking for a process that may, just may, come up with findings that will satisfy its desire for cheap political points.

So what would a new commission of inquiry achieve? The answer is simple: nothing. The reports undertaken so far have been thorough and comprehensive. A new inquiry would find nothing new and would be a complete waste of taxpayers' money. Importantly, it would distract the government from what it needs to do—that is, deal successfully with the closure of the program. This involves continuing to ensure the safety of households, pursuing those who committed fraud under the program and providing advice to the insulation industry. Just as it did six months ago, by trying to embed a sense of panic in the general public that the government was hiding the results of its safety inspections, the opposition is now trying to create a false impression that the government still has something to hide. Well, the Hawke review and the Auditor-General's report say otherwise. The actions of the opposition today are just the same as they were six months ago: irresponsible, vexatious and time consuming. I ask the House to totally reject this bill and see it for what it is: a cheap and baseless political stunt.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In calling for a commission of inquiry into the pink batts scheme, I support the opposition environment spokesperson who has moved this motion today. While I welcome the words of the government—in particular, acknowledging the tragedies that were inherent in this program—I think it is a shame that this motion involves such heart that the government cannot speak from it today but instead reads a carefully prepared statement that varies not a syllable from what appears on paper and has almost certainly been provided by the minister's office. I think it is a great shame that there cannot be some free discussion in the chamber.

The inquiry conducted by the Auditor-General showed us just a hint of some of the great fiscal policy-making disasters but it goes nowhere near far enough in unravelling the cause of many of these problems. There are 1.1 million Australian dwellings that have now been insulated, and the previous speaker pointed out that the 17 million tonnes of carbon abated, at $140 million a tonne, represents a completely crazy investment if it were purely environmental, and if we want to look at the stimulus effect, which I will focus on today, it was just as irresponsible policy-making.

My role for the first half of this speech will be to look at the context in which this home insulation package evolved from the then Rudd government—what drove this government to be so stubborn that it ignored every warning throughout 2009. I will then move through some of the collateral damage that has often been ignored by the Labor government, and that further underlines why we do need this inquiry for Australians the length and breadth of this nation, many of whom suffered enormously as a result of the government's actions.

Of course, back in 2007, with a newly elected Labor government, optimism was high. There was a massive surplus on the table and this Biafran and starved administration looked forward to spending a lot. They got the tick of approval at G20 meetings, and a small man came back from the large meetings intent on spending every cent. He had the support of finance ministers who were genuinely worried about where the GFC could take Australia. And Treasury obliged, performing TRIM modelling which, in the 2009-10 budget, indicated a massive drop to Australia's real GDP if we did nothing. History will not remember that a government saved us from the GFC. When all nations have negotiated the GFC, history will remember who did it most efficiently and most effectively and who did it wastefully. TRIM modelling of the 2009 budget predicted a 4.5 per cent collapse in Australia's real GDP, based predominantly on US inputs.

What is important is not that a pilot loses control of his instruments but that he heeds those instruments once they work again. The MYEFO in August 2009, a few months after the budget, made it inherently clear that the fiscal gap was only about 40 per cent of what had been predicted months earlier. The coalition joined with this government and supported stimulus 1 without significant question. But with stimulus 2, in the face of the unfolding evidence coming from overseas, and with Australia hitting bottom in March/April but stabilising, the Rudd government ploughed on, ignoring the evidence then, and all that has rolled in sense, that a more cautious and responsible stimulus would have done the trick. So they were left with a $2.4 billion installation package and they were intent on spending every cent of it regardless of the warnings. And that is where it first went wrong.

We had DEEWR, a department that is not usually in the position of rolling out social packages, being responsible for a multibillion-dollar program like few Commonwealth entities are. They provided the government with recurring advice that this program needed to be rolled out not with pedal to the metal but over five years to ensure that training and resources were adequate, that the backlog of other programs was taken care of, that staff accommodation was adequate and that the IT systems could manage the massive movement of money. When an Auditor-General's report fails to find that the minister had any responsibility for this very program, when the architects of it were the Rudd-Gillard administration, it is utterly clear that we need to look at this one more time and see how many more warnings the environment minister received on his desk and when.

As we passed through 2009 the evidence appeared in electorates around the country. I asked the banana republic question when installers were coming to me saying packages of insulation batts that were $19 were now $32 and rising. It was clear that the stimulus package was being gouged by wholesalers along the supply chain who provided the batts to Australia. So the great stimulus package was actually helping businesses that had no need to be helped. This was a completely overheated subsector of the Australian economy and we had a government that could not see it.

We calculated that the inflation rate in mid-2009 was 317 per cent—a little bit outside the RBA target range! No wonder everyone was in it up to their elbows. Were there any training units? Was there any supervision? Was there any provision of safety advice from this government? I do not expect the federal minister to deliver the safety training but I expect the federal minister to have the wit to realise that, if thousands of young untrained people move into ceilings around this country and start fiddling around with electrical wires and using stapling guns, something needs to be done. And now, hidden as best they could, out come the warnings that were there all the time from state agencies, federal agencies, unions and, most importantly, those who have been installing insulation for decades.

This place owes an apology not just to installers but, in particular, to Northern Australia, the tropical and subtropical parts of this great country, where foil insulation was mostly used because it has a slight advantage in that it does not trap hot air. Foil was very popular in Northern Australia and small companies have done a great job of installing this foil safely for decades. They watched on as a fly-by-nighters came in, lured by the offer of thousands of dollars, hiring schoolkids to carry the stuff up into ceilings. It was an abomination. It is too much to expect this government to be effective; it is too much to expect this lot to be efficient. All families wanted was that this administration protect people. All we can ask of a government is: if you take money from one person and give it to another, make sure you do not leave an abomination; do not leave people damaged and careers destroyed. But it is not limited to home insulation. No, this is not an isolated problem. This was a problem that, as I will show, runs right across the green sector. Those young people who put their studies on hold and those who gave up their small businesses and entered Green Loans training completely lost their training, registration and indemnity fees, as they never had a chance to enter the green economy. This place should be saying sorry. And so for the people who are sitting at home and had a knock on the door—one of the lucky 10 per cent—and had their homes inspected and were told, 'The insulation is unsafe. Have it removed or we want you to indemnify us.' Then, when the insulation was removed, there was no offer of a replacement. And for those young single mums living in tropical accommodation, for whom it was the first chance in their lives to have some insulation and they then had it taken out with no replacement because that is not part of the program. It is an absolute disgrace for those low-income families in my electorate. They were given that Hobson's choice of having it ripped out and not replaced or signing their life and that of their kids away. That was appalling treatment. And to think 90 per cent of households have never been looked at. We are right to ask: what are the odds of faulty, ineffective, dangerous or flawed installation of insulation—30 per cent, 25 per cent or 20 per cent? Let's see the numbers. But this patronising administration says: 'You're not worthy of knowing the numbers because you might panic. You might not be able to take the truth.' Imagine if a police force refused like that to give data because you might not be able to take the truth. That is the job of a government—to be transparent and honest.

We do not pretend that this was ever going to be a wonderful environmental program, but there was hope that it could abate some carbon. But two-point-something billion disappeared into nowhere and did damage, not just to those immediately but to the many who bought up stock and filled storerooms with insulation, trusting that a government would not let them down. Don't ever forget that this lot told you that vulnerable employees were being fired by SMS through the Work Choices exchange, because this lot fired all of them by SMS. People were up in ceilings putting the foil up and they got an SMS: 'You're fired; the program's over. Bad luck for any insulation you've still got in your possession,' and that was appalling.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bowman might use another description for the government.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was appalling to treat employees that way, having only a few years before blamed small business for doing the same thing. We expect better of a government. An inquiry is the right way to get to the bottom of it. This minister still skates along without having been brought to justice, and there are many elements of the way these warnings from ordinary Australians were ignored that need to be revealed.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is extremely disappointed that the opposition has decided to introduce this bill into the House. To stand accused by the opposition of not being open and transparent in our management of the Home Insulation Program is simply untrue. As the member for Parramatta outlined previously, the government has always welcomed scrutiny of the Home Insulation Program and we have supported each of the reviews into the program and accepted their findings. The government recognises that there were a number of issues in the design and implementation phases of the program, and we have never denied the fact that, in doing so, we have learnt the lessons from the mistakes we have made. However, what is more important is that the government has worked tirelessly in managing the closure of the program to a level that provides confidence in both householders and the industry, and in managing this closure the government has been completely open and transparent, through our actions demonstrating how baseless the opposition's claims suggesting otherwise have been.

When the current Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency assumed responsibility for the program following its closure in February last year, he made a number of commitments to parliament, on 10 March 2010, all of which have been addressed over the last year. In particular, the minister stated that he would focus his effort on ensuring safety for householders, providing assistance to industry and dealing strongly with fraud and non-compliance. I would like to now focus on what has been achieved against these objectives so I can highlight the priority the government has given to remediating this program. I also seek to demonstrate how the opposition has sought to derail the government in doing this important job over the last 12 months through its petty and opportunistic stunts.

Safety has always been the government's main priority in remediating the Home Insulation Program. Accordingly, we established a comprehensive safety inspection plan for both foil and non-foil insulation installed under the program. Under the foil insulation safety program, all houses with foil insulation installed under the Home Insulation Program were offered a safety inspection with the option of having the foil insulation removed or, on the advice of a licensed electrician, safety switches installed. Under the Home Insulation Safety Program the government committed to inspect a minimum of 150,000 households insulated with non-foil insulation. These inspections were targeted based on a risk assessment. Based on independent analysis from the CSIRO and internationally renowned Booz and Company the government will conclude both the HISP and FISP upon completion of the committed inspections. This means that the government will continue to undertake targeted inspections under the Home Insulation Safety Program, HISP, until a minimum of 150,000 inspections is reached. This is expected to be completed by mid-2011. The government will also finalise all inspections under the Foil Insulation Safety Program, noting that there are still a number of households with foil who have either refused an inspection or have not been contactable, despite repeated efforts.

To provide an extra level of reassurance to HIP households, the government will continue to offer inspections to those households who want them, until June 2012. Householders who have safety concerns should contact the safety hotline on 131792.

The government committed to providing an independent analysis of the safety inspection program and to release details of the inspection result. We publicly released this information on 20 April 2011. The overall result showed that around 24 per cent of dwellings do not comply with relevant HIP insulation standards. However, importantly, the CSIRO analysis clearly indicates that noncompliance with the relevant standards does not directly equate to a fire risk and that only a fraction of those houses that fail to comply are exposed to a fire risk.

The CSIRO analysis also clearly indicates that there is always an inherent risk in having insulation installed. The fire incident rate prior to the HIP was around 2.4 incidents per 100,000 homes. I am advised that the current rate for HIP is around 2.5 incidents and falling. Given that the fire incident rate has fallen to the level that occurred prior to the program, Booz and Company found that inspecting homes beyond the current level is not likely to have a material impact on the reduction of risk. The information provided here today is the result of painstaking work by the organisations involved and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. The government's main concern was that, if we released this data too early without any proper context or analysis, this would only cause confusion and unnecessary concern among the general public. I am told the government also provided several opportunities late last year to privately brief the member for Flinders on the safety inspection results and consistently explained its reasons for not releasing the data prematurely. The government also explained many times that the decision not to release the inspection results was based on advice provided by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

However, this was not good enough for the member for Flinders and his colleagues. He refused the explanation, he refused the private briefings and he refused to listen to common sense. It is not hard to reach the conclusion that the opposition were ignoring facts and reality because this was an inconvenience in achieving their ambition, which was to use this difficult situation to score cheap political points. So, rather than taking a constructive approach, giving confidence to householders and the insulation industry, the opposition shamelessly moved a motion seeking the immediate and premature release of the safety inspection data. Were they interested in getting the correct facts? No. Did they apply due care to avoid unnecessarily worrying householders? No. Thankfully, the House saw the opposition's actions for what they were—stunts—and voted against the motion.

The government has made the safety of households a pre-eminent objective. We have now reached a sensible way forward in closing down the inspection programs. This would never have been achieved if the member for Flinders and his colleagues got their way with this ridiculous motion.

The government fully accepts that some unscrupulous operators defrauded the program. In his speech to parliament on 10 March 2010 Minister Combet said that one of his four key objectives in winding down the Home Insulation Program was 'to identify and put in place processes to deal with issues of non-compliance and fraud'. He also said that he would 'rigorously pursue those individuals and companies that had engaged in' this behaviour. That is why he moved quickly to request an Auditor-General's investigation into the program in early March last year. Unfortunately, this has been conveniently forgotten by the opposition.

Minister Combet also supported the engagement of a forensic auditor to investigate how fraud was perpetrated under the program. A number of activities were undertaken on 2 March this year aimed at targeting those who allegedly committed serious fraud under the program. This involved a joint operation between the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, in which 35 search warrants were executed across three states. Concurrently, the department launched a comprehensive debt recovery program aimed at recovering all debt owed from fraudulent and non-compliant activities. These activities were the direct result of the, again, painstaking and difficult work undertaken by the department and in the KPMG forensic audit.

This work has enabled the AFP and the department to identify how the fraud was committed under the program and those who committed the fraud. Obviously, while investigations are continuing, the government will not be making public comment on specific detail. To do so would be irresponsible and put in jeopardy the painstaking work being carried out by the authorities. Any reasonable person would understand this—anyone, of course, other than the opposition.

In the member for Flinders' media release of the same day, he demanded to know:

… how much the Government is seeking to recover from those targeted in current fraud investigations;

So, while complex investigations into these matters are ongoing, before the investigations are even complete, the member for Flinders would like to know specific details of how much money is to be recovered—again, simply a cheap political stunt that does nothing other than demonstrate that the opposition does not want us to manage the closure of the program effectively.

The government provided a $56 million assistance package to the insulation industry once it decided not to continue with the program, and we remain committed to assisting the industry as much as we can. The government will continue to liaise with industry and state and territory governments over the next few months to determine other contributions that might be made to improve standards. The opposition, however, would have you believe that they have the insulation industry's interests at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth, for the opposition's policy is that the government inspect all 1.2 million homes that had insulation installed under the program. Through this position, the opposition is immediately bringing into question the credentials of hundreds of legitimate installers who did the right thing on the program. (Time expired)

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Home Insulation Program was the lead story in the $3.9 billion Energy Efficient Homes stimulus plan. However, the government failed miserably. The Home Insulation Program ended up being a monumental waste of time and money. Not only was there enormous financial loss to many involved but there was also tragic loss of life. Yet there remain risks to home safety due to the poor quality of many insulation installations. This is the purpose of the Home Insulation Program (Commission of Inquiry) Bill.

The number of jobs created was lower than promised and the runs created did not last as long as promised. A review in 2010 found a third of the 14,000 properties surveyed appeared to have faulty or dangerous insulation, resulting in a loss of any potential environmental benefits. The Auditor-General found there were more than 4,000 potential cases of fraud and 207 home fires. The environmental benefits were not even evident because much of the insulation was faulty.

To date, not one minister or official has been held to account for this botched scheme, with ministers exempted from the Auditor-General's inquiry. Although the government has agreed to carry out inspections on homes, they are only committed to inspect 200,000, which falls very short with in excess of 1.1 million properties at risk. At this time, 95,000 inspections have been carried out, with 30 per cent of the homes inspected in March 2010 having problems, including serious safety concerns. These problems concerned quality of insulation, fire and safety risks and fraud—all of which were warned about before the program. This failure of ministerial accountability must be addressed. The government are continuing to hide the facts, figures and reports that the public, as well as the families of the victims, have a right to know. Every home placed at risk must be inspected to prevent further injury or death.

The Auditor-General's report found that the federal government put stimulus over the safety of workers and homeowners with this scheme. Whilst the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities suggested a five-year rollout for the plan due to weaknesses in IT systems capability, a shortage of accommodation for staff, recruitment, training and other challenges and serious backlogs with existing programs, this time frame did not meet the government stimulus objective for the program—and we have seen the consequences.

In my electorate of Forde, one of my constituents, a lady by the name of Jennifer Wingate, an elderly pensioner, called an electrician in to find out why her downlights were failing. The result was that the ceiling was on fire. She was later told by firefighters that in another 15 minutes or so the house would have been in flames. The electrician was also at risk of electrocution, as the ceiling was live. I personally visited Mrs Wingate's property. There was already insulation in the ceiling before the new, faulty insulation that caused those problems was installed.

The government must come clean about the safety figures as well as what warnings and advice on the home insulation program were received by ministers from industry, Commonwealth agencies and state and territory agencies. It has been reported that in excess of 20 warnings were received by the government about the risks associated with the program. The government must also advise whether the program had adequate measures in place to ensure that appropriate compliance, safety and quality standards were met. It is only through a properly constituted commission of inquiry with broad terms of reference that these important questions can be answered. I commend the bill to the House.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Home Insulation Program (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 2011, and it will be no surprise that I speak against the bill. As the honourable members for Chifley and Parramatta have outlined, the government is focused on getting on with the job of remediating the home insulation program through its safety inspections. We have made significant progress towards delivering on our clear commitments under the home insulation safety plan, and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency last month provided a comprehensive update of progress to date. Throughout the process we have been open and transparent in encouraging a number of inquiries into the program through the responsible and considered release of data.

From the outset our plan has been to work to restore confidence in the retrofit residential insulation industry. This approach is supported by the insulation industry but not by the opposition. Instead, they would like to score some cheap political points and try to get a headline or two while doing nothing to work constructively. They prefer to be destructive to the home insulation industry. At each stage of the remediation process, the opposition have sought to publicly distort the facts around this issue, which has served to undermine public confidence in the inspection programs and the insulation industry in general.

In November, the opposition moved a motion in the House to push for the early release of data from the home insulation safety inspection programs. This followed several offers by the government last year to provide the opposition with private briefings on the safety inspection results. If the member for Flinders were truly concerned about this issue, he would have taken up the offer for these private briefings. Instead he seems more interested in boosting his public profile. At the time, the government explained that we intended to act on the advice of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency that to release the data prior to it being analysed would create misleading representations of results, cause unnecessary alarm in the community and undermine confidence in the industry. Of course, the opposition was not interested in any of these things, but the House did not support the motion when it came to a vote in February.

As we know, the government has now released all of the data in the appropriate form, following the analysis by the CSIRO and Booz and Company. As the government has repeatedly maintained, this considered release was the responsible course of action and has ensured that householders have been provided with the appropriate analysis of data so that its release would not cause unnecessary worry. However, causing unnecessary worry with fear campaigns is clearly not something that concerns the opposition when it comes to home insulation. Throughout this process we have seen attempts by the opposition to undermine the industry and distort the facts. Just last month, the Leader of the Opposition told an audience of business leaders in Melbourne that the government had installed 'combustible batts' in homes across the country. This might be one of the Leader of the Opposition's one-liners that he goes around repeating. In his budget reply speech there were a few one-liners to get the audience laughing—the opposition are full of negativity but have absolutely no plan. While the opposition leader seeks to undermine confidence, provide inaccurate information and denigrate properly done work by reputable installers, we on the government benches will continue to work to restore confidence in this industry.

This bill represents yet another political stunt from the opposition. Rather than assisting the industry, a royal commission would open this issue yet again, treading over ground that has already been covered through a number of inquiries that the government has previously supported and undertaken into the closure of the program. As I have stated, the government intends to restore confidence in the industry. The retrofit residential insulation industry is worthy of support. If you listened to the opposition you would think that somehow all insulation was bad. In fact, insulation is an effective way to improve the energy efficiency of homes. It keeps heat in during winter and lets heat out during summer. In terms of bang for your buck, it is one of the best things that householders can do to improve comfort and save energy in their homes. But you would not know that from listening to the opposition. The government's focus is on restoring confidence in the retrofit residential insulation industry, and I urge the opposition to get behind the government and the industry in this approach.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.