Dissenting Comments
Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne
The Greens
have long advocated strong energy efficiency policies and the Green Loans
Scheme has many similarities to a Greens' 2007 election initiative to drive the
uptake of household energy efficiency through household energy audits. The
mismanagement of the scheme has therefore been a significant disappointment. To
ensure that the causes for the mismanagement are fully understood and avoid
repetition in future schemes, I wrote to the Auditor General in February 2010
asking for an immediate and comprehensive investigation into the gross
mismanagement of the Green Loans Scheme by Minister Peter Garrett and the
Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
The Auditor
General's report, released in September 2010, confirmed the concerns I had
raised, from poor governance and weak budgetary control, to lack of probity in
procurement, and the fact that Fieldforce received a clear market advantage.
Further, everything that I alleged in the Senate about inadequate training and
quality control of assessors as well as the shortcomings of the assessment
tools were confirmed.
Overall, the
findings of this Senate inquiry are similar. I regard the body of the report to
be a sound exposition and analysis of the Green Loans Program and the issues
surrounding the pending Green Start Program. It is a different matter, however,
with the recommendations.
The Greens
do not support Recommendations 3 and 4. The contention of Recommendation 3,
that the Green Start should be abandoned based on the maladministration of the
Green Loans Program is not constructive and if effected would deny the
opportunity for the public service to learn from that experience. Given the
extensive analysis now available to inform the Department of Climate Change and
Energy Efficiency, we believe it makes far more sense for this information to
be utilised to build the capacity of the public service to implement similar
programs in the future. The other recommendations from this inquiry provide
clear parameters within which such implementation would be appropriate and
likely to succeed.
The
extensive cost-benefit analysis outlined in Recommendation 4 is also unduly
onerous given that several programs both overseas and within Australia have
already demonstrated the value of a program such as Green Start.
We therefore
support the subsequent Recommendations (5–9, 11–13, and 15) which stipulate
clear parameters for ensuring that Green Start is implemented, operated and
evaluated effectively.
We also
reject Recommendation 14, as it seems redundant given that the Green Start
tendering process has already required applicants to place a market value on
each assessment.
With regard
to Recommendation 10, we believe that in particular the Auditor‑General's
report into the Green Loans Program has established a clear basis for
compensation for assessors. Therefore we contend that Recommendation 10 should
read:
7.46 The committee recommends that the government
offer all individuals who can provide evidence that they completed a training
course to become a Home Sustainability Assessor under the Green Loans Program
the opportunity to be trained at government cost in the new Certificate IV
national qualification; or refund them the cost of their original training and
any ABSA accreditation costs they incurred.
Senator Christine Milne
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page