Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery (Senator Arbib) to questions without notice asked by opposition senators today relating to the Home Insulation Program.

Today we witnessed again Labor’s pitiful incapacity to take genuine responsibility for the massive and glaring failures of the home insulation program. Sure, Mr Rudd glibly says, ‘I take responsibility,’ but the insincerity of that oozes everywhere, because this program has been responsible for four dead, others injured—permanently scarred—90-plus roof fires, thousands ripped off and dangerous materials installed. You name it; it went wrong—disastrously wrong. So you then ask: who’s responsible? Mr Rudd says, ‘I am, of course, but I’ve got full confidence in the minister and his mini-me, who were required to implement this program.’

Labor walks away from any responsibility in relation to this disastrous program—a program which Mr Tanner admitted they were trying to rush out—deliberately not crossing every t and not dotting every i, because they just wanted to rush the program out the door. If any building contractor in New South Wales were to say to the occupational health and safety authorities, ‘Sorry: I breached my duty of care because I was in a rush to finish the contract,’ they would be up on criminal manslaughter charges under the law of New South Wales that Senator Arbib, whilst he was in New South Wales, helped to implement.

That is the reality. That is the truth. If this occurred in the private sector, those responsible would be up on criminal manslaughter charges under the New South Wales Labor government’s regime. Yet, surprisingly, Mr Rudd, Mr Garrett and Senator Arbib think they can simply walk away from this. It is an interesting insight into the way the Labor Party—and Mr Garrett in particular—do business. Remember those silly ‘Sorry’ pyjamas Mr Garrett wore? He is always willing to say sorry for everybody else’s alleged mistakes but is completely incapable of saying sorry for his own mistakes.

What is it about Mr Rudd? Remember how he was so nauseatingly pompous before the last election? He was telling us about Mr Downer’s responsibility: he should have read 1,000 cables that had been delivered to his office and, because he had not, he should resign in disgrace. Remember that? Moralising, pompous and nauseating. Today, his government is confronted with one Minter Ellison report—not 1,000 cables but just one report—and Mr Rudd simply says: ‘I never saw it. Sure, it came to the government, but I never saw it.’ Guess what! Nor did Mr Garrett; nor did Senator Arbib. It reminds me of the three monkeys, but these three were not very wise. They saw no evil, heard no evil and now are not willing to talk any evil about this program.

Let us be quite clear here. If these ministers want the ministerial stipend and if they want to be driven around in their limousines, then they have to take responsibility for what their departments do. The Prime Minister cannot simply say, ‘I have full confidence in these ministers.’ Senator Evans then said, I think quite appropriately, that there was also full confidence in the department. Who is actually responsible? If it is not the ministers and it is not the departments, then who is it? As Senator Brandis interjected, ‘I suppose it’s society’s fault.’ Nobody is to blame here; it is just something in society.

We know who is at fault. It was Prime Minister Rudd, Deputy Prime Minister Gillard, Finance Minister Tanner and Treasurer Swan who insisted that this program be rolled out—the quicker the better and don’t ask any questions—and the poor, hapless Messrs Garrett and Arbib were the ones who were required to implement it. That is why the Prime Minister is protecting them: he knows that he is personally responsible, along with these incompetent ministers. The Australian people deserve answers—better answers than we were given today.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition clearly will not accept the responses of ministers, whether they are given in this chamber or in the other chamber. We have just heard from Senator Abetz the repetition of this quite scurrilous accusation of industrial manslaughter. Let me direct the opposition to somebody who could be considered to be a most impartial commentator on this program and, indeed, on many other government programs—a person who has never been a friend of this government and has often been very critical of governments of all persuasions. I refer to Mr Tony Harris. Tony Harris, for those who do not know—and I am sure most senators would know—is a former senior Commonwealth officer and a past New South Wales Auditor-General. He is a person who has a reputation for sticking it up the government of the day, if I may use that phrase, when he thinks there is a failure in proper government or public service processes. He wrote an article in today’s Australian Financial Review which I urge all senators to read. It will give you some perspective and it may stop people, particularly the Leader of the Opposition and members of the opposition, from running around the country and making these outrageous, malicious and scurrilous allegations and accusations and claiming, for instance, that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts or the Prime Minister are guilty of industrial manslaughter. Mr Harris is an impeccable commentator without any bias in regard to this matter. I quote from his article titled ‘Abbott spurns the facts’:

But Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and coalition environment spokesman Greg Hunt are not worried by lack of evidence. All blame belongs to Environment Minister Peter Garrett, including responsibility for the deaths of four workers killed while installing insulation.

We are learning, in dribs and drabs, that some of these deaths cannot be fairly sheeted home to the commonwealth. But Abbott has no wish to be tainted by facts or courtesy. Of today’s politicians, only Abbott—fast becoming a brazen image of Mark Latham—would question Garrett’s “moral universe” for failing to resign and accuse him of “industrial manslaughter”.

The opposition’s approach has been adopted by the usual frenzied commentators, none of whom has ever administered more than an opinion.

There are a couple of those on radio in Sydney, for a start. The article goes on:

. . . the opposition has succeeded: the electorate is given self-serving accusations in place of considered facts . . .  judgements are prejudicial, especially those as rabid as the opposition’s.

I quote further:

. . . government requirements issued early last year—well before troubles emerged—suggest that the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts dealt with the issues as we would have expected. For example, most applicant householders were required to obtain two independent quotes. Quotes had to name the type of product to be installed, its insulation or “R” value, and itemise material and labour costs as well as an estimate of the area of the residence to be insulated (all of the living areas had to be insulated).

When householders—they were the parties who had contractual relations with installers—were satisfied with the installation, they would sign the form allowing the government to pay.

To obtain payment, installers had to be in the insulation business (or later be a registered supplier). They had to provide details of the product, and they had to certify that it met the minimum R value specified for the region and that it met Australian standards. They also had to certify that their work met relevant building and safety standards. If installers failed to provide reasonable service, householders should not have approved their work If an installer duped a householder, the commonwealth is entitled to (and should) get the taxpayer’s money back.

These guidelines were tightened in July, September, November and December.

The article goes on. As I said, I urge all senators to read it. It goes on, for instance, to refer to the number of deaths that occur every year in industries like construction. The former government introduced Work Choices laws which removed many of the opportunities for union officials to inspect safety standards. The point about this insulation program is that there were strict guidelines in place, and they were improved upon through the program. The opposition should deal with the facts and not prejudicial accusations. (Time expired)

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who remembers Sergeant Schultz from that wonderful program? ‘I know nothing’—that is the response we have received today from Senator Mark Arbib, the minister responsible in this place, and indeed from Mr Garrett, over not only days and weeks but months and months: ‘I know nothing’. We ask questions and we get glib responses saying safety is a top priority. That is the best we can get.

I asked Senator Arbib three questions today. He did not answer one of those questions. He took them on notice, and at the end of question time today gave a glib, short response which was entirely inadequate and did not answer the question. The answer he gave was: ‘I know nothing.’ I asked about the 21 warnings that the minister received. I quoted from his answer to a question yesterday in the Senate. I wanted to know what happened in response to those warnings, and the dates on which the changes were made. At the end of question time he comes up with four—four out of 21 is not a very good track record, Minister. You took those on notice. So I ask you to do the right thing by the Senate, by the public, and come back in here to the chamber and answer those questions. If you cannot do that then do it in quick time, by the close of business, and you will be let off. But the ‘I know nothing’ approach is the Sergeant Schultz response we are getting from this government.

Minister Garrett has said that he has ‘taken advice’ and he has acted on it. In the dark of the night, at six o’clock last night, this government had the temerity to come in here and table a document, the Minter Ellison risk register, which should have been tabled earlier, which was given to the department in April last year. The tabled document was an attachment to the Minter Ellison report, which was released last Friday, which was made public and given to the department in April last year. What does the risk register say? It highlights the risk of fires, fraud, inflated costs and waste. What else does it say? It recommends a three-month delay in the commencement of the project from July to September last year. The minister has said categorically, black and blue, up hill and down dale, ‘I acted on advice.’ Mr Deputy President, please can we get an honest answer from the ministers responsible, Mr Garrett and Senator Arbib, today? Please can they come clean and explain in detail exactly the advice they received and when they acted on it—because it beggars belief that no minister, and no ministerial adviser, saw or read the Minter Ellison report of April last year, were advised with respect to it or were informed with respect to the risk regarding this Home Insulation Program, which is now an absolute fiasco.

This government has no shame. We now have 80,000 homes across the country with safety risks from their insulation. We have 160,000 homes across the country with substandard or non-compliant insulation. In Tasmania, on a population share basis, that is 2,000 homes with a safety risk and 4,000 with substandard or non-compliant insulation. That is not good enough. And I see in the Daily Telegraph today, in relation to waste and mismanagement, that the potential or actual waste is some $400 million. Mind you, that is one in four. So, if you have had insulation put into your home, be careful—that is nearly one in four homes that will need to be checked out or audited and that are subject to safety concerns or substandard insulation. That is a big problem—please, watch out. Fifteen per cent are now going to be audited.

As to the time frame, apparently, according to the Herald Sun, Mr David Wise rang the hotline yesterday and was advised that it would take five years before his house would be checked by the government. Come on! Is there a duty of care to the families, to the people in these homes that have had insulation installed? Come clean. This is just another broken promise from the list of broken promises that the government have made. They have had so many blunders: GROCERYchoice, Fuelwatch, the hospitals that were to be fixed by 30 June 2009, the private health insurance rebate broken promise, the childcare places broken promise, the GP superclinics broken promise—it goes on and on. When will this government stand responsible and accountable for their actions? It is a great shame.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Evans with regard to the UNHCR figures. Those figures were completely disingenuous.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry on a point of order?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order was going to be relevance, in that we had strayed off the topic. But I will withdraw the point of order until I check my facts. It might be the case that it was not put that we were only taking note of the answers given by Senator Arbib.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we were asked to take note of the answers given by Senator Arbib and Senator Evans.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will try again. I understand why there might have been a point of order taken, because I do not think the opposition really want to hear this—they do not want to know what the true facts are. Once again, they are being malicious and fearmongering and completely disingenuous with regard to the UNHCR figures. The data that the opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, is using, is actually from an incomplete UNHCR report. We need the opposition to learn to deal with facts—to read their reports and make sure they understand them—and to make sure that they are not just fearmongering, trying to scare people. I will get to the reason they are trying to do that in a moment.

That UNHCR report was not published on the 15th, and final figures for asylum applications in 2009 were still to be determined. But that did not stop the opposition. We know that what they really want to do is reintroduce the disgraced ‘Pacific solution’ to detain asylum seekers. In a radio interview with 2GB on 2 February, the opposition’s immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, said:

We have no problem with finding alternative offshore detention arrangements, whether that’s in another country or within another excised Australian territory. The government has said no to that. I mean, that’s what they should have been doing for the last six months when they knew that the boats were surging. They should have been looking for an alternative offshore destination, as we did—we had Nauru and Manus.

Under John Howard’s so-called Pacific solution, 1,637 people, including 452 children, were packed off to Nauru and Manus Island, where the average length of stay was 501 days, or approximately one and a third years. This is what the opposition want to do again. The longest length of stay was 1,958 days—more than five years. The opposition ought to be ashamed of themselves for that issue alone. Of the 1,637 people detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities, 1,153, or 70 per cent, were ultimately resettled in Australia or another country. Of those, 705 were resettled in Australia.

The Howard government’s Pacific solution was condemned internationally and did nothing to foster regional cooperation on people-smuggling or promote international cooperation on providing protection to refugees. In its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill, the UNHCR expressed concern that the Pacific solution detracted from Australia’s international responsibilities. But we do not hear the opposition mentioning that at all—‘No, we’ll just forget; we’ll go back to scaremongering.’ Why can’t they get their facts right? It is beyond belief that they come in here and try to scare people.

Their latest claim, as I said, uses selective data and ignores the truth about their own record. The highest number of boat arrivals on record came under John Howard’s Liberal government in 2001, when 5,516 people arrived in 43 boats.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But we were able to actually fix it.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Back interjecting—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The months of August and September 2001 saw more than 2,200 people arrive in just 10 boats. I understand why the opposition are interjecting—because they really do not want this to come out. They want to scaremonger; they are trying to frighten everybody into thinking that something awful is going to happen. They need to learn to tell the truth; they need to get their facts straight and stop being so disingenuous with the people of Australia by coming in here in question time and asking completely spurious questions and making out that in some way the fault lies with the Rudd government. Those on the other side never let the truth get in the way of a good story. (Time expired)

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to further comment regarding Senator Arbib’s answers in question time today. I generally do not at all mind being right, but I must admit that on this occasion it is a somewhat sour experience. On 11 February this year, in regard to the Home Insulation Program, I said:

… this is going to cause a frenzy of activity in the market, but for what purpose?

I said it would simply allow the ‘cowboys’ in. I continued:

It is one small section of a market. It will attract …  people who do not have a clue what they are doing, and it will attract people who are dishonest. We will have dozens and dozens of stories of pensioners who are ripped off by  people who go up into their roofs, apparently fiddle around for a while and then leave. It will be months before they discover that they did not get what they paid for; they will be lucky if they get anything.

I had assumed then that the inordinate haste with which the government was developing this program would encourage shonks and cowboys and cause fraud and dishonesty. I did not realise that it would be worse than that—that it would cause deaths and untold damage to what has been for years a very stable industry in Australia.

It is interesting to look at the figures that both Senator Arbib and Minister Garrett have used, and tried very hard to avoid, on the costs of checking out the current disaster. We are talking about up to $60 million at present simply to check whether or not what has been done is adequate. That is just the cost of checking. All these stories ignore time after time the costs not only, regrettably, to the families who have lost people but to the many small and medium family businesses in Australia that for years—20 or 30 years in some cases—have been installing insulation in Australia. They are companies like that run by Mr Russell Browning in Bulimba, in Brisbane, where yesterday 14 sackings were announced. That is being repeated in hundreds of family businesses all over Australia. Why? Because this government could not wait to be seen to be doing something. Thank God, I suppose, they did something, but why, when they have so little expertise in this area, when their ranks are composed of people who have not worked in the construction industry ever or for dozens of years, do they think they know how to run this program?

Senator Forshaw told us that it was a good thing that the government had been tightening this scheme in September, in October, in November and in December. I am sorry, but four attempts to fix it? Did Minister Garrett and Senator Arbib not realise after the second attempt that in fact this could not be fixed and that it was a bad program? This is not an example of good activity; this is an example of a bad scheme and of throwing bad after bad.

I am bemused by the fact that this government will not acknowledge that we have not said that Minister Garrett was guilty of industrial manslaughter. In fact, Mr Abbott has simply made the point that in New South Wales consideration would be given to raising the matter of investigating whether Mr Garrett would have been guilty of industrial manslaughter had he been working in the private sector. In his defence we have Minister Gillard saying, ‘Peter can’t be in every roof in Australia,’ meaning Minister Garrett. But I bet Minister Gillard will be there beside every family business owner and every small business in Australia when they are forced to put off staff and have debts they cannot meet because of the way the government has behaved. I bet Minister Gillard will manage to be at their shoulder. As has been pointed out by Mr Abbott, the buck stops with the CEO—in this case, the minister. He has not acted appropriately. He was warned that this was becoming shonky. He was warned that there had been death and that there would be ongoing, irreparable damage to a very worthwhile industry.

Question agreed to.