Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—The motion by senators Cormann and Birmingham goes to the alleged refusal by government ministers to clarify when they became aware of various matters associated with the implementation of the Home Insulation Program, as well as the formulation and design of the program. As the Senate is well aware, several detailed statements have now been made by ministers both in this place and in the other place over the last several weeks in relation to the administration of the Home Insulation Program. To suggest, as the opposition do in this motion, that ministers have been anything but up-front in relation to these matters is disingenuous. The Prime Minister himself has taken full responsibility for resolving the issues that have arisen as a result of the rollout of the Home Insulation Program, including in relation to safety concerns of some householders.

The government does welcome scrutiny in relation to this issue. The government has commissioned a review by Dr Allan Hawke to consider issues around design, delivery and administration of the previous Home Insulation Program. Minister Combet, on learning that the ANAO has undertaken some initial planning work regarding a performance audit of the Home Insulation Program, invited the Auditor-General to conduct the audit to expedite it. In addition, the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts has established an inquiry into the program, in which the government has been participating. Departments have been answering detailed questions and providing significant volumes of information on request.

However, what the government does not welcome is a fishing expedition on the part of the opposition, a fishing expedition that is designed to achieve little more than to tie down ministerial officers in government departments. Of course to identify such a broad range of documents in a request as wide as that is to embark on a process that would clearly amount to an unreasonable diversion of resources—a diversion of resources that the government cannot and will countenance. Accordingly, given the breadth of this motion as indicated by this vote today, the government had no sensible alternative but to oppose it.