Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment Participation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Government Service Delivery (Senator Arbib) to questions without notice asked today, relating to the Home Insulation Scheme.

Senator Arbib failed once again in this place today to explain exactly what was going on with this failed and fatal national Home Insulation Program that the government has now abandoned because of its many and serious flaws. The many problems with this scheme were no better illustrated last week than in an article that appeared in the Canberra Times which quoted extensively the secretary of the new Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Dr Parkinson, about the problems with the scheme. The quotes make for illuminating reading. Senator Wong, in question time today, chose to characterise these comments, to give it a charitable interpretation, as being taken out of context. She said Dr Parkinson was reported in part, but if this was only part of what he said I would have loved to have been there for the whole speech. Dr Parkinson was quoted by the Canberra Times as saying that he was concerned about the insulation program ‘debacle’, saying that staff from the environment department had been ‘put through hell’ trying to administer it. He said:

“In the last week I have seen up close and personal what you’ve had to go through over recent months and ... it’s been hellish for you,” he said.

The contrast between what the secretary of the department that is now administering this program has had to say and what little the minister has had to say in this place is a very telling comparison. The government apparently was unaware that the department concerned was going through hell, to quote the secretary of this department, with respect to the administration of the scheme, but somehow the minister is able to say blithely: ‘I didn’t know this was happening. I wasn’t aware of it. It’s all news to me.’ The secretary goes on to say:

It’s not like DCC has any expertise in this area. DCC is not a program manager ... one of the ironies is that DCC is even more of a policy department.

The quote continued:

I’m not going to gild the lily. We are going to have huge challenges ...

That is what Dr Parkinson said with respect to administering the mopping up of the scheme left to him by Minister Garrett, the minister formally responsible for this area. What we have here is a litany of problems with this scheme which reflect how badly the scheme was administered, how badly the scheme was conceived, how badly it was rolled out, how much of it was rushed and how little the government has properly understood what it was doing as it made these changes to this important public policy area. Dr Parkinson should be given credit for actually revealing what everybody in the department that formerly administered this knew about the scheme—that it was a crock. The public were also beginning to become aware of this as this scheme was being rolled out.

Minister Arbib in question time today said, ‘At no stage was I advised the Home Insulation Program should be delayed.’ Yet the secretary of the Department of Climate Change is saying that he is aware and that he had seen how hellish the administration of the scheme had actually been. He said that there was not enough time and resources put into the program, because it was implemented almost in panic, resulting in a range of problems with its operation. Of course, the scheme has been linked to four deaths and 93 house fires. The minister, of course, claims no connection between the way in which the scheme has been rolled out in those things. Dr Parkinson said:

You have not had, for whatever reason, the resources that you needed to do the job and even if you had, there are inherent policy design flaws ...

If the secretary of the department now responsible for rolling out the scheme is aware enough of these issues to be able to make those comments, why wasn’t the minister able to acknowledge those things when the scheme was being rolled out and when warnings were being given? Indeed, why wasn’t the minister in question time today able to answer questions about exactly what was known to him about those problems—problems that many people were aware of? Even in the ACT we have had warnings from ACT public servants concerning the way in which the scheme operated. One public servant warned about the department:

They have no answer for what happens when, due to a poorly undertaken installation, a house fire starts and there is significant loss of property or worse.

That is what ACT public servants knew. Obviously we see from Dr Parkinson what federal public servants knew. Why didn’t the minister know these things as this program was being rolled out? It was poorly conceived, it was rushed out, there was inadequate consultation and the objectives were political. (Time expired)

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Arbib. The issue at hand is the terminated Home Insulation Program. It is, of course, not surprising that the opposition would seek to make hay out of this issue. But those of us on this side understand two things: firstly, we understand that it was part of a broader and, as history now demonstrates, tremendously successful stimulus program. I will return to that. The second is that, as this program unfolded and after several amendments and changes by the government, the program was terminated and the government is taking responsibility for fixing those problems and for dealing with the issues that have arisen from the Home Insulation Program.

After the program was first introduced, 140,000 households a month were having home insulation installed—twice the monthly average that had existed hitherto. It was a dramatically popular and successful scheme in terms of rolling materials out into the community and in terms of generating economic activity. You will remember, Deputy President, that the whole scheme was designed in a period of economic crisis. It was designed at a time when the stimulus had to be implemented quickly and speedily to have the correct and well-timed effect on the Australian economy. As it transpires, there have been a number of very important issues that have arisen from this scheme. As it turns out, companies had low barriers to entry into the home insulation market. Companies, in the context of the transformed environment they were in, made new and important investments. They expanded their workforce and inventories. Fair trading laws, program guidelines, occupational health and safety standards and quality standards may have been ignored. Indeed, fraud has been alleged as well. Those are all terribly serious matters being taken very seriously by this government.

But understand this: the best occupational health and safety standards and the best guidelines will be as for nothing if they are ignored. Time and time again we have heard Peter Garrett outline how he made several changes and improvements to the occupational health and safety standards and guidelines that prevailed in this area. Nonetheless, unfortunately, those standards were ignored and, finally, Mr Garrett recommended the program’s termination because its integrity had been threatened—threatened, unfortunately, by a small number of operators who seem to have ignored the laws of the land. Those operators are going to be pursued with fierce determination by this government, because not only have they put at risk this program and the confidence of the public in the work of this program, but most importantly they may well have engaged in activity which has led to workplace deaths.

We on this side of the chamber are not going to be heckled by those opposite on the question of occupational health and safety standards. While the coalition, like a group of ghouls and vampires, might have discovered workplace accidents for the first time in their political lives, we on this side understand that workers are killed or injured in the workplace every day. We on this side understand what a personal tragedy it is for all concerned, but most particularly for the families. That is why one of the first things Minister Combet did, upon taking on his enhanced responsibilities, was to speak to those affected families. He heard their stories and is now resolved to achieve justice for them on behalf of the government against those who have abused this scheme mercilessly.

We on this side of the chamber are determined to restore consumer confidence. We are determined to make sure that companies who have done the right thing, have performed legitimately and now have pressing inventory costs and wages bills, get as much assistance as is practicable. There is now a safety inspection and rectification work scheme underway with a view to triaging, if you will, those households that have had insulation installed so that those most at risk can quickly achieve relief. For those householders who are concerned about their own roofs, and the installation that has taken place, there is now a hotline that they can call. For workers who have been disadvantaged or whose jobs are at threat there is now a scheme of some $41 million to help them adjust. This is a government that has taken responsibility. (Time expired)

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Rudd Labor government’s home insulation fiasco has had three distinct phases. We had the bragging phase, we had the ducking-for-cover and passing-the-buck phase and now we have the ‘this is all behind us, let’s move forward and look at the future’ phase.

During the bragging phase Senator Arbib was out there claiming responsibility for everything and anything to do with the stimulus package—he was Mr Stimulus himself. He was in fluorescent jackets and hard hats at installation companies bragging about the additional jobs created by the Home Insulation Program, which was clearly not thought through properly. The Prime Minister told us on radio that Minister Arbib was directly responsible for the delivery of this Home Insulation Program as part of the broader stimulus. Senator Arbib, on Lateline, told the world that the most important part of his job was the stimulus package. In the bragging phase Minister Arbib was Minister Stimulus.

But today we saw that he had well and truly moved through the ducking-for-cover and passing-the-buck phase. The former minister for this area Minister Garrett is now the fall guy for this government. We had Minister Arbib in the Senate telling us that he was present at some meetings, as if he was the porter who opened the door and just happened to be there accidentally. This is the minister who had weekly meetings with the department on the Home Insulation Program, according to the audit plan. It was Minister Arbib who came into this chamber and told us about regular meetings he attended. It is Minister Arbib who is now trying to pretend that he just happened to be in the same room as some of these other people who were talking about the Home Insulation Program.

During the bragging phase—I am reading from a press release that Senator Arbib put out during the bragging phase—he talked about how the government had developed a short training course to encourage more people to start working on the Home Insulation Program. It was a short training program—and that, exactly, was part of the problem. He is the minister who took responsibility for it during the bragging phase and is ducking for cover now, quite happy to pass the buck to the hapless Minister Garrett.

This minister was at the heart of it. He was at the heart of the stuff-up. He did not make it his business to find out about the risks that were involved, yet there is no problem for him; it is Mr Garrett who has to take the whole fall for it. We knew that Senator Arbib was at the heart of it, but if we did not know we could read about it in the Australian, which quoted an email that was sent to a journalist by a departmental whistleblower. I will quote it for the Hansard:

Explicit verbal instructions were given to the Department of Environment to deal directly with Mark Arbib rather than our own minister.

And further:

This led to a breakdown in the ordinary briefing process and caused confusion as to who we were actually to report-advise.

The quote continues:

Furthermore, we were told to provide all media opportunities to Mark Arbib first and only when rejected by his office would they be given to [Peter] Garrett. And then, Garrett’s office told us to cut Arbib out; it led to the competitive photo opportunity between the two and cutting Garrett out from key economic stimulus plan meeting.

No wonder that people out there are being put at risk. No wonder the government does not have time to properly assess the risks involved or put proper risk management strategies in place if this sort of carry-on goes on behind the scenes and if it is all about, ‘How can I look as good as I can, personally?’ rather than focusing on proper and sound implementation of the program.

The question was put to the minister today and he was using weasel words to suggest that this was not actually true—that we were being misled by an article in the paper. If that is the case, why did he not say so much more clearly than he has? What Minister Arbib said today was, ‘I am not aware of a direction like this and I don’t believe such a direction has been given.’ Those are, absolutely, weasel words. What we have here is a minister who was quite keen to brag and to put himself in the sunlight and the reflected glory of all this money that was dished out as part of Labor’s various spending sprees. He was quite happy to be up there with the hard hats and the fluorescent jackets but he is not here when it comes to taking responsibility for some of the failures. He is not here to take responsibility. The compensation package that was announced last week is a complete joke. It is just reshuffling some existing money. (Time expired)

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to take note of answers given to questions today by Minister Arbib. I would also like to remind the Senate that the Home Insulation Program was part of the Australian government’s response to the global financial crisis. The program was intended to provide fiscal economic stimulus to the Australian economy and was part of a comprehensive and rapid response to a global financial crisis that has left comparable countries in a much worse state than Australia.

The program was part of the economic stimulus package and it has delivered results. More than one million houses in Australia have received insulation as a result of the program. Those householders will enjoy reduced energy costs. As a nation, the program will also deliver a reduction in greenhouse emissions as a result of the reduced amount of energy used. The program was part of the economic stimulus package that saved 200,000 jobs in Australia. We know that the opposition do not like to be reminded of the success of our economic stimulus package, which they voted against. They are not interested in saving jobs.

Other benefits from the program include, for the first time in the insulation industry—which of course existed prior to the Home Insulation Program—a national training module, nationally accredited training guidelines and national safety guidelines for installation of insulation. Prior to the program, this was a largely deregulated or under-regulated industry. In the order of 60,000 houses each year in Australia had insulation installed, and problems arose from those installations as well, including fires and industrial accidents. We know that installations prior to the program were not without incident. Since the Housing Insulation Program, we have put in place some regulations and some controls on the industry. No-one on this side of the house denies that the rapid take-up of the program by the Australian public resulted in problems—of course it was not without incident. Many of the matters that have come to light as a result of the rapid take-up of the program have now been referred for review, audit or investigation by Commonwealth or state authorities, including state workplace safety authorities.

It was very unfortunate that a program that had such great potential benefits for the Australian public attracted such unscrupulous, greedy and fraudulent operators. Perhaps the opposition should direct some of their bile to those people who entered into this scheme simply to feather their own nests, without any regard to the safety of, in particular, the young people that they put to work, ignoring basic workplace safety measures and the health and safety laws of the states in which they worked. Those people are abhorrent, and everybody on this side of the house is determined that this government will bring them to account for what they did. Those people have cruelled the pitch for the many responsible insulation installers, companies and providers in Australia who have built up legitimate businesses over a long period of time. This government is determined to support the legitimate, good-hearted business people and workers in this industry. We will do that in a number of ways, including through a support package for the insulation workers and insulation companies that are going through tough times. The government will stand behind those people and will pursue those fraudulent operators, those greedy individuals, who took advantage of this program and caused such problems.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sadly, this Home Insulation Program has become one of the greatest tales of ministerial incompetence that this parliament has seen. It does not just surround one minister—poor, hapless Minister Garrett, who has been the focus of so much of the attack. Indeed, from the very top to the very bottom of this government, ministers and officials stand condemned for the way that they have implemented this program. I say ‘from the very top’ because we know that the decisions around rushing in this home insulation scheme were taken at the top. They were taken by the Rudd government ‘kitchen cabinet’: the fabulously entitled Strategic Priorities and Budget Committee, the SPBC, of the cabinet. It comprises just four individuals, four individuals who run this government on a day-to-day basis: the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Gillard, Treasurer Swan and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Mr Tanner. They are the four who made these decisions. We know that because it was the SPBC, the kitchen cabinet, that made all the decisions about the economic stimulus measures that were taken in late 2008 and in 2009.

They made the decisions—the four most senior people in the Rudd Labor government. They left Peter Garrett hanging out to dry. They are the ones who stand condemned. It is little wonder that Peter Garrett kept his spot in cabinet through all of this—those four people would certainly not have wished to have been held to account themselves. We know those four people ignored the advice of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, which suggested a far more modest approach that would have stimulated existing businesses in the home insulation market—those who knew what they were doing. The environment department recommended something that would not have brought in all of those shonks and fraudsters that Senator McEwen was crying about before. The environment department knew there could be a model that would not bring them in. Yet the department were overruled by the Rudd government, by the kitchen cabinet, because they wanted to spend more money faster, they wanted to push cash out into the economy, and they did not care that doing so would undermine safety in this industry.

The Prime Minister, whilst he was rolling all of this money out, decided that he needed a tsar to help do so—a stimulus tsar. The person he appointed was none other than Senator Arbib. Senator Arbib, for the last couple of weeks now, has looked seriously under pressure here. He obviously wanted Peter Garrett to take the heat; he did not want to take any of the heat himself. He did not want to take the heat because, as the stimulus tsar, he was in regular meetings about the implementation of the Home Insulation Program. He was at those meetings where the program was discussed, where risks were discussed. Indeed, the Commonwealth Coordinator-General confirmed to the Senate inquiry into the insulation program that the risk assessment undertaken by Minter Ellison was raised in discussions with Senator Arbib. Yet, miraculously, he comes in here and consistently claims that he was never told about risks of electrocution and fire. What risks was he told about when, he said, he was in meetings where risks were discussed? Why, when he knew that there was a risk assessment report, did he not ask to see that risk assessment report? Manifest neglect from Senator Arbib stands quite clearly in relation to this program. He stands as condemned as Minister Garrett and as condemned as the kitchen cabinet of the Rudd government, their top four officials.

We have had Senator Cormann highlight the informer from the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts who made it clear that they were told to go to Senator Arbib, not to their own minister. We have also had Senator Humphries, in starting this debate of taking note of answers, highlight that the government has changed the administrative arrangements around this Home Insulation Program as if that is some kind of magic solution. It is worth restating and reemphasising the points that Senator Humphries made in closing—that is, the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Dr Martin Parkinson, made it very clear last week that his department was no more qualified to implement this new program than the old one was. Dr Parkinson said it is not like the DCC had any expertise in this area—DCC is not a program manager. If it does not have the expertise, why is the government empowering it to do something that could end up being just as risky as the previous program? (Time expired)

Question agreed to.