AJFA

From what I heard on the radio this morning, Garrett received advice 6 months ago; sought to tighten the program, and was overridden by Rudd. Hence Rudd's apology was more than for the media or to save face. He appears to have been directly at fault for not agreeing to tighten the program.

I regret that the program was chopped without ceremony. This was a poor response. I would have preferred for it to have been tightened. It should and could have been tightened when Garrett first raised the issue. I was not aware of any deaths at that time. They may have come later. Had appropriate and timely action been taken they may have been averted although in hindsight one can not know this for sure.

There's a lot of fuss being made about the foil insulation at present although that was also used before the program so can't be seen as a direct result. We insulated a home we owned once with the foil - did it ourselves - and having heard of the problems I had remarked that I was glad no-one was electrocuted and that we'd had no fires.

The insulation we used was silver batts not stapled down. The stapling seems to have been causing the problems and I'm not sure why stapling was necessary unless this was just flat sheets. Indirectly this may have been a result of the program, in that there was much pressure on supply and some people were using whatever insulation they could get.

I still feel that the media have been exaggerating the problem with the insulation program and that when the inspections are done the problems will be found to be far less than has been estimated or portrayed. There's been so much hysteria over this program and so many wild accusations made that I can't take much of what is said about it seriously. This hysteria was carrying on on talk back radio long before Abbott blew the whistle. Talk back radio hosts are not well known for either accuracy of reporting or ethical behaviour.

Wal

AJFA

I respect your opinion. There have been some interesting report on these issues lately, such as:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/12/2843624.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/we-cant-blame-garrett-for-batts-bungle-20100308-pqs7.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/09/2841206.htm

Also a few others I can't locate right now. The media have been having a field day.

The piece by Michael Epis is here:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/episodes/the-adventures-of-tony-the-unbelievable/20100310-pz28.html

Cheers, Jan

Another good article by Ben Probje who shares my sentiments; good because, well, because it's satirical and funny; although apparently the funny side has escaped Tony:

"then there’s the matter of metal clips used to fasten insulation. He took far too long to ban these and scrutiny of the official regulations reveals that at no point did the Government make it clear to installers that metal can potentially conduct electricity. Without this vital piece of technical information, they were flying blind — it’s like asking someone to fly a plane without warning them that at some point they will find themselves airborne. You see how the dreadful errors of omission keep mounting."

Jan

Story is here: http://newmatilda.com/2010/02/24/beware-shonky-operator

Wal,

In terms of Garrett's advice, he received multiple warnings. The warnings from Minister Ellison were given before the programme began, and Garrett admits he didn't read their report until about a week before the scandal broke out.

Whether or not the media has exagerated is yet to be demonstrated. Statistics of 4 deaths, nearly 90 house fires and thousands of homes needing their insulation fixed or replaced seem to speak for themselves.

Jan,

I agree that Abbott's paid maternity leave scheme was wild and is very bad policy. It may be that my views on Abbott are now a little closer to yours, given that I have lost some respect for him since he does not appear to have consulted with anyone or done any serious thinking before announcing the parental leave policy.

However, Ben Probje is not making a serious argument. No-one has suggested that the Government should have "it clear to installers that metal can potentially conduct electricity". The question is why it rolled out a scheme that it knew or ought to have known had serious safety risks.