Page 829 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the commonwealth government under the MOU only with the permission of the complainant.
Since the commonwealth government’s insulation rebate scheme commenced on 1 July last year, the Office of Regulatory Services has received 12 formal complaints—12 complaints. There have been thousands of homes receiving insulation under this program and how many complaints have we had? What is this big issue that the opposition are so concerned about? Twelve complaints! This is four more formal complaints than when I last updated the Assembly in February and that is because more complaints have been received since that time. And I remind members that a formal complaint is one where the consumer has progressed from just seeking information and advice on a matter and an investigation has commenced.
As I advised the Assembly previously, until this last month there had been no complaints lodged with the Office of Regulatory Services in relation to unsafe installation of insulation. The advice I provided at the time was correct and I stand by it. And there is no evidence to the contrary.
The most recent of the complaints received are similar in nature to those lodged across a number of industries and are related to potential misleading and deceptive conduct. All of these complaints have been lodged with the ACT fair trading unit and they are being assessed and, where appropriate, either mediated or investigated.
Of the 11 complaints received up to 9 March 2010, all related to consumer affairs issues, not safety issues. A breakdown of the formal complaints is as follows:
six complaints regarding misleading and deceptive conduct on the trader’s part following the change in the amount of the commonwealth government’s rebate. The complaints related to how much of the rebate could be claimed by consumers, not a safety complaint;
one complaint regarding an occasion where the consumer was allegedly denied the rebate because the trader told them they were ineligible, not a safety complaint;
three complaints regarding an inadequate quality of installation, but not in relation to the safety, not a safety complaint; and
one complaint regarding delay in installation following the signing of a contractual agreement, not a safety complaint.
It is now the case that, subsequent to the questions being asked in the Assembly and documents being ordered, a 12th complaint has been received and is being investigated by both ACTPLA and ORS and this does relate to a potential safety issue.
All of these matters are being investigated by ORS and, where relevant to the commonwealth government’s scheme, this information has been or will be passed on to the relevant commonwealth department under the MOU for their action in relation to installers registered under the insulation program. I repeat: none of the complaints received until March this year related to unsafe installation. I have not misled the Assembly and the claim made by the opposition is fundamentally flawed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video