House debates

Thursday, 25 February 2010

Questions without Notice

Home Insulation Program

3:01 pm

Photo of Bob BaldwinBob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer you to a constituent of mine, Mr Ron May of Insulmaster, who now faces the prospect of having to sack 28 of his workers and who, in good faith, purchased $630,000 worth of stock that is now idle. While you claim, Prime Minister, that your solution will solve all of his problems, when will Mr May be paid an amount of $239,817.54 in unpaid rebates from your government, dating back to July 2009? Prime Minister, how does this fit in with your promise on your nation-building home insulation fact sheet for installers, where in step 3 you say the government will pay insulations within 14 days? I seek leave to table this fact sheet, which has now been removed from the government’s website.

Leave not granted.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting

Photo of Harry JenkinsHarry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! The member for Paterson will resume his seat. The question is in order.

Photo of Kevin RuddKevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank the member for Paterson for his question and the interest that he raises here on behalf of a constituent and an insulation company. If I take the member’s statements to the House at face value and if they are accurate then they would reflect unacceptable treatment of the firm concerned. Therefore, the Commonwealth should be in the business of making sure that its bills are paid on time. Therefore, under the circumstances raised by the member, if they prove to be accurate then action will be taken to ensure that our contractual obligations are met.

Secondly, in response to the other part of the honourable member’s question, which goes to the specific circumstances of the firm and the financial pressures which the firm is under as a result of the government’s decision to abolish this program—as called for by the opposition, including the honourable member himself—I would draw the honourable member’s attention to the three specific sets of measures outlined in the government’s statement yesterday on support for individual workers. That is relevant to firms and their ability to retain workers as well.

Thirdly, in terms of transitional assistance for firms affected by this decision on the part of the government, we are still working through, with the industry, other appropriate forms of transitional assistance. But I would return to the initial part of my answer, which dealt with the concerns which the member has raised about bills not being paid on time. If that proves to be accurate, as I said, that is unacceptable and we will attend to ensuring that it is rectified as a matter of urgency.