Home insulation royal commission: Legal argument delays Kevin Rudd's evidence at inquiry

Updated

An unprecedented legal scrap is delaying Kevin Rudd's evidence at the royal commission investigating his government's home insulation program.

The inquiry is examining how decisions were made and how warnings were handled before the worksite deaths of four installers in 2009 and 2010.

The royal commission will decide this morning if the former PM's evidence will be admitted uncensored to the open hearing room.

The former prime minister took the stand about 5:15pm (AEST) yesterday, but legal argument over the redaction of his 31-page written statement overtook proceedings.

Mr Rudd is demanding his evidence not be censored, but the Commonwealth is fighting to protect cabinet confidentiality.

It is a legal dilemma the Royal Commissioner Ian Hanger QC was not expecting.

"Before we started the commission I thought there might be a lot of arguments about public interest immunity - I thought to myself that the members of cabinet would be the ones who are raising it, and of course this is exactly the opposite of what I expected," he said.

Mr Hanger has been considering the issue overnight.

The Commonwealth wants parts of the statement to be blacked out because, it says, it is in the public interest that cabinet discussions be kept confidential.

But Mr Rudd's lawyer Bret Walker SC strongly rejects that argument.

"You should have, of course, the unredacted full statement and so should the public and so should anybody who wants to know the facts," he said.

"So far as my client is concerned, any redacted version of the statement is not my client's evidence. He will not put his oath to an incomplete, truncated version."

Mr Walker says it would be a "devastating truncation of the truth" for Mr Rudd not to be able to give his evidence in full.

"We don't want to dance (around the matter). We want to face it front on and march straight ahead," Mr Walker said.

"It is the current Government that has brought this about by the terms of reference. We want to answer the suggestion and we should be able to do so truthfully and fully.

"It is quite unfair and wrong of the Commonwealth, the Executive, to take a stance that says they can sponsor those allegations and they can stifle public answer to them."

Seeking a compromise after an hour of legal argument yesterday, Mr Hanger QC said he would allow Mr Rudd's statement to be submitted in its entirety, but for him to be questioned in closed session.

This prompted lawyers for the families of the men who died installing insulation to argue their clients did not wish to be excluded from the proceedings.

Relatives want to hear full story from Rudd

Relatives of four men who died under the home insulation program say the former prime minister should not be stopped from telling the full story about the scheme.

Justin Sweeney, whose brother Michael was killed, says Mr Rudd should be free to tell all.

"That's the point of him being here. He should be able to sit in the witness box and give statements, what he knew and what he didn't," Mr Sweeney said.

"That's what my family, and I'm sure all the other families, want to know."

Bill Potts is representing Murray Barnes, whose 16-year-old son, Rueben, also died.

"The full truth of what happened in cabinet is the best disinfectant and the best guarantee that this type of tragedy will never happen again," Mr Potts said.

"The Australian people want to hear the truth and Mr Rudd - and good on him - wants to tell it."

The home insulation program was rolled out by the Labor government in 2009 as an economic stimulus measure in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Earlier yesterday, former environment minister Peter Garrett continued his evidence and told the commission he was "gutted" when an installer was electrocuted in 2009.

Three of the four men who died while working on the program were electrocuted.

The inquiry heard that just weeks before the first death, more than 400,000 homes were insulated but there had only been 467 roof inspections.

Mr Garrett told the inquiry that after installer Matthew Fuller's death, safety was an "absolute priority" for the program.

"I think it's obvious that if you get a death in a program, it focuses everybody's mind," he said.

Mr Garrett maintains the public service did not tell him everything he needed to know.

The $20 million royal commission is supposed to be in its final days.

The commission is also to hear from the families of the four installers who died.

Topics: royal-commissions, federal-government, workplace, accidents, occupational-health-and-safety, rudd-kevin, australia, brisbane-4000, qld

First posted