MOTIONS

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Manager of Opposition Business) (17:35): I say respectfully to the member who's moved this motion that I hope that she has made sure that all the batteries in her electorate have been installed properly. I say this incredibly seriously because one of the things that this motion doesn't address is the way that this program has been rushed out.

Already the reporting that we've seen, on the ABC and in newspapers, is about the potential risks of the rollout. That's why those of us on the opposition have called for an immediate audit of this program. There are two reasons why we need an immediate audit of this program.

The first is around safety. This program was meant to cost the taxpayer around $2 billion. It's now in the budget forecasts that it's going to cost $8 billion.

The money was rushing out the door so quickly that the department ran out of money to be able to fund it, so they had to go to the Clean Energy Regulator—who was meant to be overseeing and supervising the scheme—to fund it. I can't ever remember where the regulator has been called in to finance a program—because the money's running out the door so quickly—because the department has actually run out of money.

That should ring alarm bells to start with. What should ring alarm bells is that, every time we have quizzed the minister or sought documents from the minister about how the program's safety checks are going, we get nothing. We have to remember that one of the organisations which are doing the safety checks is the Smart Energy Council.

People say, 'What would be wrong with the Smart Energy Council doing it?' Well, the problem with that would be that they actually fund the government. They pay money to the Labor Party for political campaigning, so how can they independently look at this program when they're a funder of the Labor Party? They pay donations to the Labor Party, and they're being asked to oversee this.

So, when a program like 7.30 starts asking serious questions around safety, I think it's time for an independent audit. When the Australian has on its front page a fellow who's had a battery installed, but because it's been stored in an area where the temperature drops and then rises, he's had to put a blanket on his battery, it's because he's worried about what the implications will be for the integrity of that battery.

We can sit here and say, 'Oh, isn't this wonderful? We've been throwing money out the door—$2 billion to $8 billion,' but there's also got to be questions raised around whether the government is sure, then, that people haven't been abusing this. Does it have proper integrity?

The last time we had a program that went from $2 billion to $8 billion—where the regulator had to fund it, where it looked like the government had no idea what it had embarked on—it was a scheme which, sadly, the government ended up having to pull in, and we ended up having a royal commission into it. That royal commission said that what the government needs to do when it rolls out programs is make sure that it does so in a systemic way—that there are proper checks and balances, that the regulator is watching closely and that there's proper auditing going on.

Now, that is not what we're seeing with this program. It's all very well to come in here and just sing and dance about the government spending $2 billion originally and that going to $8 billion, but, if you're going to do that, make sure you've got the proper checks and balances in place otherwise it can end up being very, very costly for the households that you are trying to help.