Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the report by the Environment and Communications References Committee on the Green Loans Program. As the Senate will be aware, the Greens have long advocated strong energy efficiency policies and the Green Loans scheme had many similarities to the 2007 election campaign initiative that the Greens launched. It is very clear that one of the best things we can do to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in Australia is to retrofit all existing buildings—residential, commercial and industrial-scale facilities—so that they are as energy efficient as possible. So the Greens welcomed the Green Loans Program when it was announced by the government as an election policy in 2007. However, the mismanagement of the scheme has been a complete and utter disappointment for the Greens and I have to say that the mismanagement of this program together with the Home Insulation Program has seriously damaged the reputation of energy efficiency for householders around Australia, and the government is largely responsible. I wanted to use the opportunity in recognising this report being handed down today to say that it is really now up to the government to spend a great deal of time restoring people’s confidence in energy efficiency because there is no doubt that energy prices are going to rise around the world. As the world economy recovers, you are going to see increasing demand for energy and increasing power prices. The best way of dealing with that is to reduce demand, and that is something that needs to happen as soon as possible.

I wrote to the Auditor-General because I was so concerned about the way that the Green Loans Program was being rolled out. I could see there were real concerns particularly from people who, in good faith, had paid for their own training to become Green Loans assessors and who thought there were going to be 1,000 to 2,000 assessors in the scheme. It turned out in the end we had nearly 10,000 people trained, some of them trained and accredited and some of them trained, accredited and registered with a contract with the department. It turned into a complete debacle, including some of the larger corporates coming into the system. They apparently had different rules and were given market advantage, as the Auditor-General found. All of the allegations I made in writing to the Auditor-General after his comprehensive analysis of the scheme were shown to be completely valid. Overall, the findings of this Senate inquiry are similar to the concerns that I had expressed about the scheme. Poor governance, weak budgetary control, lack of probity in procurement, the fact that Fieldforce received a clear market advantage, everything I alleged about inadequate training and quality control of assessors as well as the shortcomings in the assessment tool and the end assessments are confirmed.

I regard the body of the report to be a fairly sound exposition and analysis of the Green Loans Program and the issues surrounding the pending Green Start program, but I do not agree with many of the recommendations that come out of this report. I do not support the idea that Green Start should be scrapped. I think it is absolutely essential that we do retrofit for energy efficiency, particularly for low-income households, and I want to see the Green Start program rolled out as a matter of urgency. So I completely disagree with that recommendation of this inquiry, because you cannot want to reduce demand, you cannot have a social conscience, and not want to help low-income earners around the country reduce their costs and make their contribution to the conversion to the low-carbon economy. That is the basis of our disagreement with the report.

We believe that many of the recommendations will help in providing a better information base and better capacity in the Public Service to implement the Green Start program. I do hope, having heard from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in estimates and so on, that they have learnt the lessons of the Green Loans Program and that Green Start is going to be better managed. We certainly hope so. I do not think that recommendation 41 recommending an extensive cost-benefit analysis is worth while at this point. I think it is unduly onerous, given that several programs in Australia and overseas have already demonstrated the value of programs such as Green Start. What we need to do is to make sure that it is rolled out effectively, that we have good governance arrangements and that we get the maximum benefit in the long term.

It is very clear to me that there was maladministration in the program and therefore many of the assessors—10,000 people around the country—deserve to be compensated because they went into this program believing that it would be a three- or four-year program and that there was a clear business case for them to pay for the training and go ahead. They were promised by the bureaucracy that they would have their training upgraded to certificate IV. That has not happened. In my view, the Auditor-General’s report into the Green Loans Program has established a clear basis for compensation for assessors. Therefore, we the Greens have put in our dissenting report that the committee recommends that the government offer all individuals who can provide evidence that they completed a training course to become a home sustainability assessor under the Green Loans Program be given the opportunity to be trained at government cost in the new certificate IV national qualification or that they be refunded the cost of their original training and any of the Association of Building Sustainability Assessors accreditation costs they incurred.

I think that is only fair. Once an Auditor-General says that a government department has maladministered a program, it will lead to legal action against the government anyway in terms of various claims. I think it would be much better now if the government acknowledged that there needs to be compensation and set out a reasonable scale of compensation to cover people’s expenses—and let us get on with making sure that some of the recommendations in this report as to process, oversight and governance are implemented so that we can see Green Start deliver the benefits to assist low-income households to reduce their demand for energy and therefore reduce and manage their costs. That is the critical thing. I do not believe in witch-hunts, but I do believe in identifying the problems in rolling out a program and I do believe in fixing those problems in the Public Service. I think the government owes the nation the responsibility of going out now and selling energy efficiency to the community and restoring the confidence that the community once had in the energy efficiency that they lost as a result of these debacles over the last few years. All in all, energy efficiency is a key part of the solution, and I welcome the Green Start program and want to see it rolled out. I hope that everybody concerned in the Public Service has learnt the lessons of what went wrong with the Green Loans Program.