What a disaster.

We need to understand however, that this order of waste is going on in all government departments, it’s just that it’s less visible and the enthusiasts for government action are perpetually blind to it.

Statists of course blame an unregulated market: too many “cowboys”. But a government scheme to hand out billions of dollars in goods or services that people aren’t willing to pay for is by definition not a market phenomenon.

The attempts of people to capitalise on the waste certainly is a market phenomenon. But that can only be fixed either before, or after the fact. It could only be fixed beforehand by complete government control of everything. And it could only be fixed up after the fact by ever-increasing government regulation of everything.

To say the problems caused by governmental intervention should be fixed by more, rather than less government, is to display an unfalsifiable belief, the deep structure of which is as follows:
‘Because problem, therefore government is the solution.’
Then when any problem arises from that approach, the same approach is applied:
‘Because problem, therefore government is the solution.’

Even though Chris Lewis criticises the scheme, his approach is essentially the same: more “scrutinisation” (governmental action) is the solution.

The problem with this circular belief is that it is never able to see beyond the superficial level of the immediate problem.

The unintended negative consequences of governmental action often pop up in an unrelated field. For example governments funded scientists to find that we’re all going to boil to death, the solution to which is government funding of pink batts, which produces negative consequences, so the government licenses batt installers, which is the story so far. But the unintended consequences go on, perhaps in making insulation less affordable and therefore wasting energy or lives, or perhaps increasing unemployment, or perhaps in a scam in the compulsory insurances thus established. To which, the solution is always, more government.

This modern unfalsifiable and therefore irrational belief is in its deep structure no different from pre-modern superstitions like rain dances or sacrificing virgins.

If this was done by a private corporation, the directors responsible for it would be in prison for a very long time.

So what happened to the corporate directors in this case? Well one is retired on a $600,000 pension paid for by all the people he defrauded, the other has been promoted to the leadership of the entire government, and another has been rewarded with less work for the same amount of money.

Ideally of course they should all be in prison, but short of that, perhaps the next most moral solution would be for all the people who voted for these clowns to be forced to pay back the whole lot to those who didn’t?

In future, disasters like this could be avoided by the following method:
“Hands up all those who want to pay for a scheme to install pink batts for free so as to stop everyone on the planet from boiling to death for which the evidence is dubious and self-interested, at best, and fraudulent at worst?”
(Show of hands)
“Right. *You* pay for it. And no pink batt schemes for you until you do.”

We would then see a bit more economical pink batt installing I’ll warrant.

The whole Batts debacle is going to haunt us for a long time. I find the lean of this article to proportion blame only to the federal government ignorant. Yes they and especially minister Garrett should have seen the routing issue at the start and organised what to do quickly. As i have previously stated on this, simply having the states make insulation require a development application and inspection would have stopped most of the issues. Where were the state based OH&S people when it comes to work place deaths and their responsibility in this. As for the electrical trades industry, i bet they warned of the risk as a result of generations of poor quality wire that runs through so many homes in the suburbs. The cheap batt imports? where were the Australian standards?

As for the 'Because problem, therefore government is the solution’ bit there is of course the mirror problem to this. The 'leave it to the private sector and market forces'. Remember these? they are the fools that bought us the GFC that was the cause of the need to spend so much money so fast to save our butts that it was a stuff up in the first place. Really well run bank schemes and falling super plans, collapsing businesses and dodgy board decisions. On and on it goes and how many of them are heading to prison? No we just had to spend trillions world wide to save their butts.

The balance between government and private is the illusive prize we all are searching for, but being one eyed won't get us there.

There are many parallels and lessons here which need to be applied to the relentless ill-considered push for an ETS or carbon tax.
The same mismanagement, cover ups, waste, rorting and deaths, transposed onto a global scale, as we have already begun to witness.

The whole Batts debacle is going to haunt us for a long time.

it won't haunt me

My houses were either already insulated or did not qualify on the basis of size (bigger than a chook pen)

But we should not forget

The deaths

the wasted resources

The additional resources supposedly spent fixing the mess

I have one friend who set up an insulating company, based on alternative materials and is now down $150k + with no chance of recoupment.

He is but one of the private investor individuals, encouraged by this rat-bag government of the bungling inept to invest in providing these services and now abandoned as the headless chook looks to cover its own arse in the run up to election.

Some of us voted Liberal-Coalition

and will do again

"Maintain the commonsense" and talk with swinging voters

Our taxes, our resources, our future and our childrens future

no one can afford to leave back-stabbing, incompetent, faction lead and union ruled, power junkies in positions of government.

Socialism is so well suited to the inpotence of opposition. There they can wring their hands and beat their chests and make stirring speeches about nothing at all and it just does not matter but government... they just do not have the bottle.

"Remember these? they are the fools that bought us the GFC that was the cause of the need to spend so much money so fast to save our butts that it was a stuff up in the first place. Really well run bank schemes and falling super plans, collapsing businesses and dodgy board decisions."

You are only displaying the circular belief that I have just described.

Government grants itself a monopoly of the supply of money: you know, the stuff that is used in every financial transaction, as in Global *Financial* Crisis? Now giving someone - anyone - a licence to print money predictably ends in exactly the kinds of negative unintended consequences that in fact happened: endless printing of money, falling value of each money unit, inflation, bubble in the area in which the new money enters the economy, diversion of capital from productive fields into malinvestments based on observed tendency of never-ending rise in value, attempts to hedge risk in the underlying disaster (aka derivatives bubble), inevitable collapse of the boom, bankruptcies, unemployment, etc.

The circularity of the belief system is shown by the fact that many of the governmental interventions which are originally supposed to be solutions, are themselves later described as problems. For example, nairbe buys into the belief that we "need" government to take billions of dollars from ordinary people and pay it to big multi-national corporations to 'save our butts' (government as all-knowing benevolent saviour); but then defines this divisive behaviour as a problem in need of solution by - guess what - more government of course.

"The balance between government and private is the illusive prize we all are searching for, but being one eyed won't get us there."

That assumes that the problem is "out there" (government as perfect).

The real balance that is missing is to question the unfalsifiable belief: what if it's *not* true that government makes society better by monopolising the money supply, or giving away free pink batts? Then the whole train of reasoning collapses, doesn't it?

People are sure funny. I mean, thousands of people availed themselves of the Government's scheme to get free insulation. And, of course, there weren't enough people to do the work.

So capitalism and supply and demand being what it is, encouraged unqualified people to start laying batts much the same as ordinary home owners do. These people, seeing a quick buck, cut corners but home owners didn't care because they were getting something for nothing!

So we have the homeowners trying to get something for nothing, some dodgy tradespeople laying the insulation, and a Government that was doing its best to get money out into the community to stave off a depression.

But according to the pundits on this thread, only the Federal Government is to blame.

Perhaps the blame needs to be apportioned where it belongs!

David G displays more of the unfalsifiable belief. As to the past, government was unblameworthy (without sin; a perfect being). It was only trying to make things better (benevolence) by "staving off a depression". A depression just mysteriously materialised out of nowhere. It had nothing to do with the fact that government is the only institution with an interest in every financial transaction - an inflationary interest (innocence of any material motive). The depression has nothing to do government's claims to be able to manage the economy (omniscience, omnipotence). Government is able to make something of out nothing (loaves out of fishes) by taking money from A and giving it to B. The blame is entirely 'out there' (government has no part in it, i.e. is perfect). The blame needs to be "apportioned" (entirely to non-governmental actors).

Two use the expressions of the state-worshippers, a "balanced" view would ask: is it true that government has the competence to manage the economy and manipulate the money supply without negative consequences worse than the original problem? To "open up the other eye" would be to ask: if so, then there wouldn't be a depression, would there?

Instead of asking what regulations should fix this problem, we should be askign
c) as a proposition of fact, is it really true that the government can fine-tune the world's climate at will?
d) as a proposition of ethics, is it really true that the government should be taking money from some people, so as to give other people free pink batts?

Notice there is still no questioning of these underlying assumptions. Government is presumed to be like a god, over and above society, participating in none of its faults or follies, perfect, blameless, all-knowing, all-capable. Only the sin of man keeps fouling things up.

It's the same mentality as in the medieval trial by ordeal. If the accused survives the torture, it proves that it wasn't necessary, tough luck to him. But if he doesn't, it proves that the torture was justified in his, and in future cases.

The only solace that comes from the repair of the damage is that reputable professionals will get money from the government this time. Money that is going directly into our economy, and we can assume that the recipients will pay tax on it unlike the governments previous partners.

no wonder Julia's slogan is 'lets move forward'. She is afraid that anyone with half a brain that looks back have a gigantic stuff up staring them in the face from day 1 of her Government. Now she makes a tax plan on the run, a border protection plan on the run and a climate change policy on the run and unfortunately will will have people 'bright' enough to stick their heads in sand and re elect her party. And to think she raves on about the need for more education. Somebody needs to give this party a few lessons on honesty, accounting and truth telling.

Peter, I hope you enjoyed your flight of fantasy about perfect governments, etc.

What it had to do with my comment I really do not know. No matter.

The short-cutting, shoddy work, poor quality control and poor communication with the client are systemic problems of the home building industry in Australia.

There are no compulsory minimum standards for construction and the Building Standards Authorities are set up to be reactive not proactive. Their inspectors are diplomats. It is reprehensible that the same serious faults in construction continue to be reported, year after year. It is tragic that Australian builders are so far behind their European counterparts in design and quality of construction.

Of course home owners who took up the offer of subsidised insulation encountered problems and there was no effective resolution, what else is new? Similarly, of course building in schools is subject to rorting and is often sub-standard. Again, that is par for the course.

Both sides of government have known about these problems for decades. However, because the thousands of home owners affected are represented individually while the builders have their large 'unions' to stand up for their interests, no change is possible. That is unfortunate because the better builders and tradesmen have no incentive and are penalised through having to compete with sly entrepreneurs who are here today but gone tomorrow.

Peter, if government as the consensus representation for the interests of the population are such an unnecessary disaster then are you suggesting what. Anarchy, tribes like in Afganistan. I would like to hear your suggestion for the future of humanity. In the mean time i am comfortable with my assertion that the best lies in a balance between free market and governments otherwise it is like a game of footy with no ref.

Cornflower, The minimum standards for building in Australia are 'Building Code of Australia' and 'The Australian Standards'. These must be read together and carry specific methods of construction that are accepted and offer performance provisions for the effective proof of alternative methods. Building standards in Australia are good but the industry does suffer from too many cowboys and B/S artists. Your comment on European building being so much better is somewhat miss directed as the building needs due to climate and geotechnics are very different. If you view the standards for cyclonic zones and alpine areas you will note the difference as to what can be done compared to say Sydney suburbs. I do agree that the finishes that are accepted leave much to be desired, but this is not structural and is driven by the "ME" generation and their need to have it all now as well as the mega profits that building groups want to show share holders.
As for the inspection process, remember that this has been decentralised away from local government and can now be done by licensed building surveyors. You can debate the pro's and con's of this system but in the end if a plan is approved then the inspector cannot challenge the design, their job is to ensure that the building is built to plan.

nairbe,

Precisely what forces builders to comply with any of those 'Standards'?

The home owner can write compliance with those standards and with the installation requirements of manufacturers into specifications for work, but if the builder does not meet any of them he (the home owner) does not have a leg to stand on because he then has to prove in a Building Tribunal that the non-compliant work had actually resulted in damage.

To take an example, a building could be constructed with the weep holes in brickwork below the level of landscaping - which is an obvious cause for concern. However it is not sufficient to take that evidence plus information from the 'Standards' you have quoted plus (even) reports from the Building Standards Authority proving how such poor work is a common cause of mold and damage to structure to the Tribunal. What the home owner must do in addition is to obtain engineering and other evidence to prove that damage has actually been sustained during the insurance period.

The complaint being proved, the Building tribunal might require remedial work to the area proved, or it might just award an amount for repairs and the owner is left with that and wondering what other areas will also fail.

Taking another example which is a common source of complaint, which is the tiling of wet areas and even shower floors over timber chipboard and without compressed cement fibre sheeting between (floor movement will cause damage to the waterproofing membrane). There is nothing to prevent builders from such shoddy, un-tradesmanlike practices and again, the owner must wait to detect moisture elsewhere and hope to prove its source. How would most owners know until many years later that the strange smells are from water leaks?

What is required are Standards that are Standards that MUST be complied with as a minimum, no ifs, buts or maybes. If it is not done right, tear it down and start again.

Once again we witness an author duck-shoving the market's failure onto an inexperienced government whose intentions were for the common good.

The racketeering 'insulators' ripped off the government, ripped off the consumers and killed off a few others.

The author should consider writing an article on BHP Billiton who has killed some fifty people in less than a decade - 17 deaths in the '03/'04 financial year under Mr Howard's 'free' market ideological regime.

Where's the huffing and puffing about a 'free' market that's out of control - lest we forget?

Cornflower.
It is illegal for a builder to allow landscaping to be built against a concrete slab or brick work without the required waterproofing measures and ventilation. If they do the building surveyor should refuse the occupation certificate. What home owners do after they take possession is another issue all together as not all homes come landscaped.

The standards are surveyed and confirmed in the approval process. If a builder fails to meet those standards then they have acted illegally. Certainly a shower recess should never be built as you suggest and there are very strick regulations involved in the construction of wet areas. None the less you are right and shoddy workmanship goes on. But how do you suggest the standards are enforced without extra costs. We suffer mechanics that charge for parts they don't replace and even worse we tollerate super funds that charge us to let them make money out of our money and then can hardly even say sorry when they loose it. Imagine the mess if we let someone we have no idea of come in to our home and install insulation just because its free.

Please explain how you can stop the cowboys in all industries? While the consumer is greedy and unrealistic about cost and don't do any homework on the reputation of the builder they employ the shoddy work will continue. The tribunal may not be perfect and might improve with some more clout but where ever lawyers are involved it will always be expensive and outcomes shaded in confusion. It's a problem of law not the building codes.

Protagoras,

you so passionately take up cudgels against big business citing strings of safety infractions from decades past and damning them to hell, yet when a government puts in place a patently flawed system with no checks and balances in spite of multiple warnings, and as a direct result 4 young people are dead, and nearly 200 homes are burnt down, suddenly you are defending them because they meant well?

I smell the stench of hypocrisy.

I'm amazed that no one, anywhere, has bothered to mention this was originally an Obama scheme. Our innovative, progressive and thoughtful politicians have simply said "well the Yanks are doing it, so it must be good, right?"
Fortunately (for them) the Americans have had a branch of the Dept. of Energy doing this sort of thing for 30 years, so Obama's 5 billion injection wasn't quite as off the wall as the Australian model.
Rudd appears guilty of following Gough's example, in trying to do too much, too soon.

nairbe,

Regardless of known discrepancies with specifications and contravention of 'Standards' the home owner has no right whatsoever to require compliance with specifications nor to require the builder to remedy work that contravenes the Standards.

After paying in full for practical completion - otherwise the home owner breaches the contract - the home owner can then try to get deficiencies corrected. However the home owner is foolish to do that before final payment in full and key handover, for fear that the builder will retaliate by claiming any of a zillion reasons including purported breach of contract by the home owner and delay final completion by months. The builder doesn't worry, he has front-loaded the contract anyway and loses nothing.

Now comes the gritty bit, the home owner can waste $30,000 minimum on a contract lawyer to resolve cheaper substitutions and cosmetic faults. Where there are known serious faults, inspected by suitable professionals and photographed during construction, the home owner is nonetheless obliged to wait for evidence of deterioration and will have to pay for more professional reports to back that up, unless he can get the diplomats in the BSA to act (takes months).

How can this be fixed? Easy peasy, by BSA or independent (BSA certified) inspection at established stages of construction against formal Standards (ie force of law). Any home owner would gladly pay for the inspections.

Benefits? The good builders and trades get plenty of work and all year long, they can afford to keep their gangs of preferred trades and the cowboys get out of the industry.

“you so passionately take up cudgels against big business citing strings of safety infractions from decades past”

I guess 2004 would be ‘decades past’ for the dyslexic SM. Even 2009 where in a nine month period, seven workers were killed at BHP/B sites, would be history or perhaps hilarious given your mentality.

A corrupt market and recurring mortalities are trivial for in-bred bigots in political damage control. Keep swaggering SM - that's what radicalised ideologues do best.

Protagoras,

You really should take your medication before posting, as you appear to be arguing my point.

Lets see BHP with 10s of thousands of employees and contractors working in one of the most dangerous professions in the world has a spate of fatalities, following which they spend hundreds of millions upgrading their safety systems.

Garrett ignores industry safety warnings to put in a dodgy scheme which amongst a few 1000 young employees (who have undergone a rigorous 1 day training course) kills 4 of them in a few months.

Their action is to cover up until too late, then cancel the scheme and do almost nothing to re mediate their stuff up.

Yet you foam at the mouth in the first instance, and make excuses in the second. I can see where your loyalties lie, and it certainly isn't with the truth.

Cornflower.
Yes this is pretty well right, but the point i made to you still stands. The problem is one of law not the building codes.
I would imagine that the greater majority of people out there sign there building contracts without reading them properly. If they did they would either not sign or they work on the theory of "she'll be right". It never is.
You are quite within your rights to employ an independent building surveyor to oversee the job but you must negotiate it into the contract. As with all things this would require a lawyer to negotiate the contract, a building surveyor to be retained all leading to much more expense. This is the reality of such costs and why commercial buildings are so much more expensive.
Any attempt to change the current legal position of contracts would require legislative change and with lawyers running the country you have no chance. I can only repeat, your complaints are valid the industry suffers badly from cowboys and it makes it difficult for the good tradesman but the problem is in law not in the required standards. The standards are enforceable by law but the law is an ass requiring all sorts of evidence that is expensive to establish despite what can sometime appear to be the obvious.
I have worked with some builders who have gone back 5 and 6 years latter to fix cosmetic problems to protect their reputation. It is amazing when you work in the country and one bad job can destroy you business for years, how much more careful you are.

how much more careful you are.
nairbe,
40 years ago I finished my apprenticeship. Since then I have mainly worked in maintenance which didn't so much involve actual maintaining the facilities & machinery but rather fixing poor workmanship & design. Many years ago I had to get a card, then another, then another & yet more cards either to prove to some moron bureaucrat or more to the truth, to provide revenue to the Government by paying for every card. Many of those "qualified" people whose shonkey work I had to rectify are in fact many times more "qualified" than I yet, it was I who always sorts out the problems.
What's that got to do with the Home Insulation Fiasco ? Well, why were these people permitted to do this work in the first place when they obviously had no practical training & even less experience ? Ever since the clever bureaucrats of the past have done away with on the job training & pushed half-baked tutors into TAFE who in turn aren't allowed to fail anyone thus issuing certificates to people who have no idea about the work they're getting the certificate for. Anyone remember Bob Hawke's "by 1992 no child shall live in poverty" & "we must become the clever country" ! Can anyone shed light on what has happened ?

From a marketing perspective this scheme and so many other similar schemes from this government, were always destined to end in tears. It serves no purpose to blame various industries, rorters, trades people, government departments or regulators. Particularly since this blame game simply apportions blame based upon individual political perspectives by either defending or attacking the various players.

Each of these players is probably responsible in some way or other however, this misses the point. Any interference in the function of a market will “skew” that market. It will create both opportunists and victims.

All markets are a finely balanced combination of inputs, resources, regulation and customers. Tipping a bucket load of free “anything” into this mix will cause problems. Pink bats is one good example, it tipped money (new revenue streams) into the front end and caused a massive expansion in the back end (customer demand).

As a direct consequence, the opportunism by trades to rapidly expand their businesses was done at the expense of regulatory compliance; they went beyond their capacity to resource and regulate their expansion. Regulatory bodies and government agencies were also exposed through both weak regulation and the capacity constraints of their own resources.

The same dynamics came into play with school computers; demand was suddenly increased by this scheme, the installing and supporting these computers in schools was missed by the scheme. The costs of set up, network connection, system administration and applications fell back to the schools that naturally went back for more funds to cover these costs.

The BER is another classic example of market skew. The free money brought out the worst in all the players and is probably the worst in every respect.

It’s a diversion to blame the opportunists, victims and regulators. Many have taken advantage of these schemes or been exposed by them, but they are just the players. The real causes are deliberate market skewing through ill-conceived political schemes.

Government amateurism is further compounded, not only do these schemes violently skew the various markets; they do so with three other market aberrations, Tokenism, Ideology and Populism.

It was a debacle.

Peter Hume
Tthere is no "if it was done by a private corporation". The rortting was 'done' by the private contractors not the Government. The Government's failure was in ensuring the program was delivered with all the appropriate checks and balances and with money invested in placing enough people on the ground to oversight the installations.

What we ended up with was a bunch of fly-by-nighter would-be insulation 'experts' and defrauders who by some reports did not even put in insulation but banged around a bit in the roofspace of some poor old lady who knew no better, many of them foreign owned short-term money makers.

Accountability does not only apply to Government but to the private sector - the trick is in getting those mechanisms right which is absolutely the role of Government and where they failed in this case.

Protagoras:>> Once again we witness an author duck-shoving the market's failure onto an inexperienced government whose intentions were for the common good.<<

Pro, short sighted good intentions aside, they failed to spend our money in a cost effective manner. Then the government failed to react to overwhelming negative outcomes happening daily in the suburbs of Australia.

This is the Batts fiasco to my mind as I watched it unfold.

The govt gives UP TO $1600 for insulation, all jobs miraculously now cost that $1600 plus extra from the home owner if exceeded. That concerned me.

Ongoing reports of poor work quality and dangerous work practices, batts are being placed over existing batts and electrical cables. That concerned me.

Dumped batts now start to show up regularly on the sides of our roads and "boys" driving shabby vans and utes with no company logo or contact numbers now ply the streets packed with batts. That concerned me.

Six months in and the rebate falls to $1200, all jobs now cost $1200. Summer has arrived, and the first death of a teen in a roof, then a second. That concerned me.

House fires due to poor work practices now occur. Houses fitted with foil backed insulation must all be inspected. That concerned me.

Ten months later they shut it down, I could see major concerns in the first three months, and by the sixth I knew it was a farce. How is it not the governments fault?

Two guys one ute three jobs and you make $2000 a day. I am truly sorry that I did not see it for the scam it was earlier, all I had to do was buy a ute, I had the other requisites, two arms and two legs.

nairbe,

No, the Building Code, Australian Standards and manufacturer's installation guides have no force whatsoever in law. As I have explained and it is correct, even specifications written into the contract does not cause the builder to comply with them because when push comes to shove, the builder will do what is required by law.

No, inspections during the construction are rendered worthless simply because the builder cannot be required to amend anything, even a very obvious and detrimental swap of cheaper materials (eg dura-coated or painted steel in exposed weather in lieu of formally specified hot dip galvanised). The builder will simply say that the building is under completion, full stop and bugger off.

At fault are building 'standards' that are NOT Standards because they are unenforceable, they have no force whatsoever at law. Also at fault is the reactive rather than proactive, regulation of the building industry. In reality and for all practical purposes the home building industry is self-regulating, to the detriment of vulnerable consumers.

Fact is, it is only political opportunism that presently encourages the opposition to be interested in the insulation debacle. The LNP like the government presided over a corrupt building industry for decades and they, like the government, have scant concern for the unnecessary financial and safety risks of home owners, they are just playing politics as per usual.

More superstitious liturgy.

Accountability doesn’t apply at all to the government. Have they accounted to you for how much of your money they spent on the pink batts scheme? Has anyone responsible for wasting billions paid any personal cost?

The reason why the ‘cowboys’ were there, was because the people dispensing the money weren’t taking care to get value for money, because the money wasn’t theirs, because the government had taken it in the first place. If it had been left to what people would voluntarily offer and accept, the entire fiasco would never have happened, which was the situation before the government did it.

It is another blatant lie to say that the home building market is under-regulated. It is covered by literally countless regulations. It is subject to environmental planning laws, regulations and policies, LEPs, building codes, extra codes for compliance with environmental standards, occupational health and safety laws, regulations and policies, industrial relations laws, regulations and policies, compulsory occupational licensing, compulsory insurances, compulsory inspectorates, compulsory standards, administrative reviews, you name it, and multiple interventions from every one of three layers of government.

Only government could possibly direct such important work (omniscience, omnipotence). But the government has no responsibility when anything goes wrong (immaculate conception; infallibility; benevolence). Without government blowing billions of other people’s money on nutty pink batt schemes we would all revert to a state of barbarism (?). The clerical hierarchy have perfect knowledge of what should be done (perfection)– it’s just that the serfs and mundanes keep mucking up the divine plan (original sin). But more of what didn’t work last time – regulations - is the only thing that could possibly fix the problem next time (corporal punishment as holy mortification).

This is just nutty superstition; impervious to evidence and reason.

Then when you point out that the belief is unfalsifiable, do they respond by showing how the belief is falsifiable? No. They just keep *repeating* the original creed.

It’s like:
“Don’t you think this burning witches caper is a bit superstitious?”

“Heretic! The man communes with the devillll!”

Yes but Peter how is the private sector any different. What accountability do they hold, we can't even vote them out at an election if they err or defraud us or if some executive defrauds us of our funds and moves to warmer climes.

"It’s like:
“Don’t you think this burning witches caper is a bit superstitious?”

“Heretic! The man communes with the devillll!”

Speaking of superstition. Your quotations could be equally coined in response to those who espouse highly libertarian, free market ideology who blindly believe in the 'natural' mechanisms of the marketplace to determine wholly the wellbeing and rights of citizens and stability of nations.

Governments are by no means perfect but lets not hold blind faith that the alternative would be any better. Governments fail when they forget they are put in place by citizens for the citizens not to rule in their own right.

You are lying. It is not irrational to think the private sector can produce things economically. All the revenue of the state comes from confiscated private property. So private property is both logically and factually precedent and necessary for the existence of the state.

On the other hand, if were true that the state has the competence to regulate the building industry, then the only rational conclusion is that they failed and the problem was government.

Government is not accountable at all, because even if you vote against them, you are still forced to pay for their schemes just as much as if you had voted in favour. (In fact, you're more liable to pay, because the people who won't have to pay are more likely to vote to force others to pay).

All the politicians and bureaucrats responsible for all the waste not only don't pay any personal costs, they get *rewarded*, as I pointed out, and you religiously ignored.

And even if the government gets voted out, the next government, like the old one, is not accountable to any person forced to pay for the "service". The laws of fraud do not apply to them. They can lie and break promises all they like.

The private sector is accountable in profit and loss. All the defective performance that was normally loss-making, and would send the company broke, became profitable under the government's scheme. This is entirely the result of the fact that it was a government scheme.

Your belief system could only make sense if the government was able to run the whole economy, which is a religious fantasy with no basis in evidence or reason.

Partial socialism is only possible because of the existence of the private sector it parasitizes.

You have *total* control over whether you buy a service in the private sector, they are liable to account to you, and are liable for misrepresentation, failure to perform, and fraud.

Businesses are *totally* subject to the sovereignty of consumers, because profit and loss means if they don't provide what consumers want, they disappear.

None of that applies to government. Voting is compulsory. You only get to vote once every three years. You get only one twenty-mllionth of a say. In practice you have no control over what politicians decide. The competing parties all have an interest in presenting the same policies to get the same majorities. You are forced into the result whether you voted for it or not. The laws against fraud or total failure to perform do not apply. Politicians and bureaucrats are not accountable to anyone they take the money from. People can force someone else to pay the costs. The more the bureaucracies fail, the bigger they get. They are incapable of economic calculation in terms of profit and loss except by reference to the private sector. Without economic calculation, if things are not to be done for a profit, they can only be done for a loss.

How is that better or more representative of the good of society?

Do you feel any responsibility for the houses that got burnt down because of your support for this dopey scheme? No. Are you going to hold *yourself* accountable? No.

It's like dealing with the creationists. You point out all the evidence and explaining power for the theory of evolution, and contrast it with the total lack of evidence for creation, and they retreat into the ignorance of asserting that's it's all a matter of opinion.

Your mentality is the same as that which in former ages burnt witches at the stake, refused to consider the irrationality of your own belief system when it was pointed out, and continues to insist that arbitrary irrational violence is the only possible basis of a better society.

[Comment deleted for abuse and poster suspended].

[Deleted for abuse and poster suspended]

[Deleted for abuse and poster has been suspended]

Peter Hume,

Did I just hear the word "challenge"? - closely followed by "liar" and "idiot" - sounds a familiar scenario.

This is a grown-ups forum. I'm afraid you'll have to learn to stop calling people names when they disagree with you.

The Governments biggest problem was that they put too much trust in the integrity of the small business owner.

It's not the Government that's ripping off the taxpayer and rorting the system, it's the multitude of greedy mini-capitalists milking the system for a quick buck.

However, the Governments failing was their haste in getting this programme out.

When they were looking around for some sort of rapid stimulus they found this scheme sitting on the shelf - left behind by Malcolm Turnbull when he was Minister for the Environment.

Instead of going through the usual protracted administrative methods they just pushed it out into the marketplace and hoped for the best.

Garrett's mob after designing a 1 day training course allowed these contractors to become certified.

The minor issue is that there was some rorting of the system, the major issue is that the scheme encouraged poorly trained youngsters to do work for which they mostly unaware of the dangers or consequences.

Garrett's mob had this pointed out to them several times before they proceeded, but more intensive training and safety auditing would have seriously delayed the scheme.

As for trying to lay the blame at the feet of the small contractor, even the government has not be stupid enough to try that one.

Where there have been clear breaches the contractor has been prosecuted, but there has never been any doubt as to where the main responsibility lies.

As for Protagoras, with her psychotic and abusive ramblings has again gone off on a tangent. (it is easy to see why she is regularly banned from the site)

PS
-dyslexia means that you can't spell.
-10s of thousands implies > 10 000. With 14500 direct employees and by your own estimate about 25000 contractors that easily meets the criteria.
-BHP's safety record in mining in Aus is one of the very best in the world.

Again your obvious bias and myopic view of the government scheme exposes your hypocrisy.

"the scheme encouraged poorly trained youngsters to do work for which they were mostly unaware of the dangers or consequences."

It's quite revealing that those who trumpet the self-regulatory prowess of private enterprise blame the government for the fact that private contractors chose to set to work youngsters with inadequate training.

So we ask the questions once more:
Who "knew" that the youngsters were poorly trained?...and who set the youngsters to work in a hazardous environment knowing that they were poorly trained?

You don't have a choice to buy from every business as you proprose, if those businesses (like banks) offer no choice. Now that you cannot even ask for wages as cash, we are forced into banks whether we like it or not.

Where there are supermarket duopolies where is the choice for those without transport or who cannot easily access other food markets etc.

How can a different viewpoint be labelled as lying?

As soon as someone resorts to the "you are a liar" retort you know immediately their own ideology is on shaky ground. Or when one's view is compared to burning witches at the stake. An analogy that can easily be used for the flimsy faith in free market economics. There is no free market, there are too many human failings for it to ever work as you would see it.

Peter Hume, "You have *total* control over whether you buy a service in the private sector, they are liable to account to you, and are liable for misrepresentation, failure to perform, and fraud."

Superficially it would appear that way, however government certifies trades and builders, for example through the Gold Card system in Queensland.

There is misrepresentation from the start because home owners are led to believe that there are minimum standards for all building work and renovation whereas there are none.

There are the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standards and manufacturers' installation requirements (necessary for warranty), but there is NO formal requirement nor compulsion for tradesmen or builders to comply with any of those 'standards'. A 'standard' that doesn't have to be met is NOT a management control NOR a quality control, it is meaningless. Worse, it is misleading and encourages short-cutting, poor work and fraud to occur.

Shonks can easily exist in the building industry and it may take many years for their poor work to be noted through catastrophic failures. By then the business has changed names or the 'entrepreneur' has moved for a while into another profitable and poorly regulated activity.

contd..

Peter Hume, "Businesses are *totally* subject to the sovereignty of consumers, because profit and loss means if they don't provide what consumers want, they disappear."

Again, superficially it appears that way but home owners are most likely making the one-off most expensive purchase of their lifetime, not a regular purchase. It is not an area where consumers can be expected to have knowledge of building practices, be able to discriminate between suppliers, or be able to effectively monitor and resolve disputes. The homeowner is at the mercy of an industry where the 'standards' are not what they pretend to be and the so-called Gold Card trades and Gold Card builders can easily take advantage of them.

Government and industry tell consumers to engage Gold Card tradesmen and builders. The builders' associations (their unions) such as the HIA and Master Builders list and supply names of their members who have Gold Cards. It is reasonable then for a home owner to accept that at face value - that a government (and industry supported) certified Gold Card builder will perform to a certain minimum standard and good building practices would apply.

It is completely unreasonable and reprehensible that home owners are misled to believe that they are protected when clearly that is never the case. Because simple, there is no such thing as a minimum standard of building. It is all a fraud on the public.

For proof, just look at the common serious building faults reported year after year by the various building 'standards' authorities around Australia. Then there are the thousands of home owners who are not 'fortunate' enough to have sub-standard work fail during the insurance period. Of course, having something fail and having pockets deep enough to find the cause when things are behind cladding or under soil or concrete is another matter.

Building 'standards' authorities cannot address sub-standard work until after building completion; and after the home owner has had to pay for it; and after there has been attributable evidence of catastrophic failure.

It is like trapping rats in a wire netting cage!

Poirot,

"Who "knew" that the youngsters were poorly trained?...and who set the youngsters to work in a hazardous environment knowing that they were poorly trained?"

Peter Garrett, the electrical workers union etc Knew.

Many of the new "contractors" had never home insulation before, but sent their workers on the 1 day training program.

While they can be prosecuted for providing an unsafe work place as with any industrial accident, they are effectively immune to manslaughter or negligent homicide charges, as they took the proscribed action and training.

Shadow Minister,

Fair enough...I agree that the government had a responsibility to set more stringent guidelines...however, it is also a sad indictment on the abilities of those who set out to make a quick buck in the private sector, to proceed with vigilance and care on behalf of their employees.

Perhaps organisations lobbying on behalf of small business - and those who extol their virtues - might explain why so many small businesses rorted the system and failed to do their job properly? I don't entirely blame the federal government - after all, most who criticise the scheme are believers in an open market economy, that the federal government had no right to spend money to keep the economy going and keep people in work, and that small business is the backbone of the economy.

If small business is the backbone of the economy, then it's a very sick backbone. And the rorting of the home insulation scheme is an excellent example of how greed appears to be the basis of small business.

Poirot,

What many posters don't realise is that these small contractors are often Mom and Pop enterprises. My wife having been for a while an IR consultant for some small businesses was staggered by how little awareness there was amongst these industries of IR laws, safety legislation, local regulations etc, and how many of them were falling foul of legislation that they did not know existed or even that they might exist.

For a small entrepreneur that hocks himself to the hit to buy insulation, and follows what he thinks is the required training to be accused of just "trying to make a quick buck" is extremely ill informed.

Especially considering that most of them face financial ruin with the abrupt cancellation of the scheme, and are faced with large quantities of useless stock and redundancy payments.

Where the federal government was wrong was that it either didn't perform am adequate risk analysis or it chose to disregard identified critical risks for which there was no apparent treatment.

The highest risk of all and one that must have been glaringly obvious, was that there never have been any compulsory minimum Standards for building work. Even if the apparent standards were written into agreements, they could not be enforced. There are apparent 'standards', such as the Building Code, the relevant Australian Standards and the installation guides (necessary for product warranty) of manufacturers BUT none of those have any force whatsoever in law and can be disregarded at will by builders and trades.

On top of that, the so-called building standards authorities, the intended police of the non-effective building 'standards' (which we have already found are not Standards in operation), are themselves compromised and usually rendered ineffective both by the lack of compulsory minimum building standards to enforce and by their reactive, rather than proactive role.

As I have said in earlier posts, short-cutting and other poor building practices are long-standing in Australia and it wouldn't appear that either side of government is willing to so anything about it for fear of the builders' unions. That is a very great pity because the home is shelter and is probably the greatest single purchase most people will make in their lifetimes.

Sure the government is presently embarrassed but what about the many thousands of home owners who are led to believe in the Clayton's 'standards' like the Building Code that many are in the habit of builders thumbing their noses at and they can easily get away with that scot-free?

Shadow Minister,

I take your point, and I have sympathy for those enterprises that were left in the lurch. I believe your criticism of the government is valid to a point.

However, I believe it is incumbent upon small business operators to make themselves aware of any potential hazards applicable to their workplaces. Many of these businesses were set up in haste to take advantage of the scheme.
It"s all right to criticize the government for its lax training initiatives and regulation but, as you pointed out in your last post, many business operators do not make themselves cognizant of regulations set up by various bodies even when appropriate guidelines are in place.

Poirot,

It is incumbent on the small businesses to find and follow the laws, and where they don't they should be punished.

However, it was also incumbent on the government to evaluate the risks and put procedures in place to mitigate these. The risk assessment was done and then the risks and recommended measures ignored.

If on my construction site I hire a contractor, I assume that he employs competent persons, but if someone has an accident I am held responsible. The result is that no one works without proof of training. Site induction, and a safety auditor lurking, to ensure that the contractors comply not only with the AS standards, but the site requirements over and above that.

In industry you cannot completely delegate your responsibility, neither can Garrett.

Well ya reckon thats crook!
Check out the Green Loans.
Not very complicated at all, great idea.
Dont have to build or install anything.
Labour had that as policy prior to 2007.
Labor went to the 2007 election with it.
You would have imagined it was thus all well thought out.
Then in government had 18 months to get it up and running via DEWHA.
Then from day one it went live it went pear shaped.
Garrett prefered to listen to the dissembling civil servants rather than the screams coming into his office from the effected punters.
And now we have Ms Wong hanging everyone out to dry.
Nice one,ten points for monumental incompetance.