Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I just have one follow-up question. You were conferring with your colleagues—or your advisers, I should say—and you may have missed one element of my question. It was that my understanding is that the internal review—without giving anything away of the internal review, and respecting the confidentiality of the briefings I have received—focused very much on the particulars of the application of the deed. It does not necessarily, as I am led to believe through the verbal briefings—because I have not been afforded the benefit of the written brief or the report—refer to the particulars of the incident per se, which as you have rightly advised the House is being managed by the Queensland regulator. I am just trying to appreciate why a report into the deed itself and the application of the arrangements relating to the provider and the host cannot be made public. I would certainly welcome any advice you can provide on that.

Can the minister also indicate whether the review—this is the internal review, not the Queensland regulator's report—references the findings of the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program and whether it demonstrates that the review has recommended changes to any internal processes that conform with the commission findings?

See this speech in context