From the Sydney Morning Herald today:

"Insulation installed under the federal government's controversial scheme has been linked to 18 recent home fires and could be the cause of 174 house blazes, new government figures reveal.

The federal opposition is now demanding every home that received insulation under the $2.5 billion program be inspected, calling the scheme "an epidemic which is running out of control".

There have been no known deaths as a result of these fires, though the possibility has been raised by fire authorities.

The government admitted yesterday that it had carried out less than a quarter of the safety inspections it promised on homes with suspect insulation.

Figures reveal only 32,000 homes with non-foil insulation have been inspected, despite the government promising to check at least 150,000 premises."

The problem is clear, the solution is clear, this not rocket science, yet the government refuses to act in spite of having promised to do so.

If Labor cannot even meet basic commitments before moving on and just leaves debt and unfinished business in its wake, how on earth can they ask us to trust their future promises?

Shadow :) Let's play "yes minister" for a moment.

Sir Humphry "Prime Minister.. we are getting a lot of flack about the home insulation problems.. fires and all."

Prime Minister "But Sir Humphry..did'nt we do something about that ?"

Sir Humphry "Yes Minister.. we made a very clear and strongly worded 'press release' and our polling shows this had a positive impact in 2 marginal seats."

Oversight of building codes are in the state jurisdiction. The problems seems to be that the Commonwealth assumed that the states had a robust system already in place. Am I wrong?

It is amazing to me that the media has done nothing about reporting the prosecutions associated with dodgy insulation installations, and it is equally amazing to me that you
Shadow Minister (like the media) would prefer to focus on process rather than the actual culprits for the insulation debacle.

I for one would like to see these people punished ( they are, we're just not seeing it in the media ), for ripping off the taxpayer and the Govt and endangering people and their property. These people who arrived canvassing at peoples front doors, peddling sub standard services and those who were foolish enough to acquiesce to them, bear the real responsibility for the failure of what was a very good idea in the first place.

I for one also am sorry I didn't take up the offer in time because I as a consumer would have been discerning and aware of my own responsibilities when considering something so important for my home.

Gov't bashing has worked for the Opposition as well as frustrating and blocking the Gov't and it's agenda for the entire 3 yrs of the Rudd Gov't , but now it's time to show us your policy's.

As a person who is program driven when voting it's clear that I can't see the oppositions program Shadow Minister, but I do know the the Big Multinational Corporations sure like the current leadership of the Liberal Party etc.

Convince me that their isn't something wrong with this relationship Shadow Minister, and show me a picture of Peter Garrett fitting the insulation causing injury and your case for further Govt culpability might bear some credence, otherwise it just doesn't.

Yes Grant, I'm sure you're right.

This bunch of twits have made a habit of assuming things. Isn't it a pity that very few of those assumptions have had even a passing relationship to fact?

Still, burning down houses achieves an increase in the stimulus package, paid for by the insurance companies. Probably one of this lots better financial schemes. God knows, it's probably the only one that's worked.

Ultimately, the man at the top must take responsibility for the actions of his workers. Peter Garrett may not have installed any insulation, but he oversaw the process - even if by remote. Thus it is his place to take the fall. That's why he gets the big money.

I understand the point that the unscrupulous businesses that did the dodgy jobs must also take responsibility. And I agree with it. But, if I own a business and hire external contractors to do work for me, I am also responsible for their work. It is my responsibility to identify appropriate contractors and ensure that they do a good job, particularly when public safety is at stake. If they don't do a good job, I must take action against them. The same applies for the government and its contractors. They did a bad job, but they were allowed to by their hirers.

As for the consumers, yes some were stupid. But, I would suspect, the companies preyed on their stupidity and the government let them. I would like to think that the government is out there to protect the people from the wolves, rather than to set the wolves loose to attack the people at will.

What do you expect when Garrett, who from his concert days looks like a third rate spiderman impersonator, is left dribbling over the reigns of state?

I know some folk who, encouraged by “government plans”, invested their pension funds heavily and have been now been left with a nasty bank debt, unused factory (for processing insulation material) and a freshly unemployed work force.

Such are the consequences of relying what a collectivist government said.

Personally I would not trust a Rudd government official to know what was happening later this hour any more than I would a Greek government official. They are cut from the same cloth and it has never had a nice patter

At least the insulation program is getting Australia noticed internationally. Mark Steyn wrote this in an article:

"Still, at least nobody’s dead. In Australia, the Labor government, eager to flaunt its green credentials, instituted a nationwide environmentally-friendly roof-insulation program, using energy-efficient foil insulation. It certainly reduces the carbon footprint of many Aussies’ homes: At the time of writing, 172 of them have burned down. It reduces your personal carbon footprint, too: Four installers of the foil have been fatally electrocuted. As the Sydney Daily Telegraph’s Tim Blair noted, the foil-insulation program has a higher fatality rate than Oz forces in Afghanistan. And, if the electrician survives long enough to get the installation completed, the good news is that, unlike the electric Zamboni, the electric attic always has plenty of juice: Colin Brierley had the foil insulation put into his Gold Coast home and was electrocuted a week later. The environmentally friendly electric shock entered through his knees, exited from his head, and led to a nice stay in hospital in an induced coma.

Australians are not happy to discover their ceilings double as the Bride of Frankenstein’s recharge slab. Belatedly canceling the program, Peter Garrett, the Environment Minister, is nevertheless insistent that he bears no responsibility for the burnt-out rubble and charred citizenry. He is a celebrity politician, formerly the lead singer of the rock band Midnight Oil, but he has no intention of getting burned by what they’re calling “Midnight Foil”. As Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, breezily told a TV interviewer, “Peter Garrett can’t be in every roof in this country as insulation is being installed.” "

The government is in the same position as a builder who subcontracts
a job to a carpenter etc etc.
The builder is ultimately responsible especially as they were
officially warned of the problem before the program commenced.

I have heard that the rate of fires is a bit less than one a day.
They could very quickly eliminate a lot of the batt installations
by checking how many of the houses have in ceiling down lights.
There could be other problems with transformers used for burglar
alarms or similar purposes that may be in the ceiling.
Another risk is bathroom infra red heating lamps and ventilation fans.
However 100% of the one million houses have to be inspected no matter
what the situation.

I just don't see how it can be avoided.

The safety record of the insulation industry was already unacceptable
before the scheme, and this is where the Govt erred.

The Gov't has accepted responsibility and ultimately decided to end the scheme
realising that it was unrealistic to expect some industry participants to change their behaviour
and act ethically and/or in the public interest.

The Govt did protect the people from the wolves in the only way they could.

I too accept the Gov'ts responsibility, but do not believe it primarily or ultimately responsible.
Crooks seem to flourish in our society today and I would still like
to see these people prosecuted. I would also like to see the Govt govern.

I note that no one has yet responded to my others points, or my plea
that the Opposition show us it's policy's. and no one has acknowledged
the blocking,frustrating and obstructionist tactics of the Opposition
ruling in exile from the Senate, even though it is absolutely accurate.

I thought Peter Garrett was an iconic performer (by the way) in Midnight Oil
and your Stern remarks show your jealousy for the achievements of others
when you make such unkind personal Jibes to make a point Stern.

Comparing the Gov'ts situation to that of a small business employing contractors
is also unfair purely because of scale. Like comparing Tasmania with the Solar System.

Also running a business is not the same thing at all, as being a Gov't is it?.
The thought processes are entirely different. And so they should be!.

Gov'ts could not act in the best interests of their constituents if they were
the same thing, but instead would have to act in the best interests of their masters.

Finally the International economic press has described the RSPT
as an elegant tax and a good idea for example.

As with all things there are 2 sides to every story mjbp and views other than
Mark Steyn's (whomever he is ?) do exist internationally.

And, where are you Shadow Minister?. Your conspicuous by your absence.

The Commonwealth provided a subsidy to homeowners to use their judgement to get roof insulation.

There were shonky people installing insulation before the scheme, and workers died before the scheme, and jobs were not done properly before the scheme came into being.

The government's error according to the Liberals seems to have been believing that adult Australians could use their judgement and take responsibility for their decisions when purchasing a product, whether it is subsidised or not.

On the logic of the "batts are burning" case , Tony Abbott was responsble for aged care , a subsidised and Comm onwealth regulated service , he is therefore guilty for the deaths of every old person while he was Minister.

What makes anyone think that the insulation risks only came into being at the time of the government's insulation grants?

Both sides of government have been complicit in turning a blind eye to the corner-cutting, shoddy work and other abuses that are rife in the building industry. There is no compulsion whatsoever for builders and tradespeople to comply with the Building Code, Australian Standards or manufacturers' installation recommendations.

The Labor government was foolish to go ahead with the insulation subsidy when any competent risk analysis would have advised against it for the reasons outlined above and the lack of trades.

I think it's reasonable to assume that any Insulation companies that were well established before the scheme came into operation would have continued to do the right thing. It's those fly-by-night opportunist companies that were set up quickly to cash in that should get the first inspections.

A spot check on the standards of each company should provide an early indication of whose work was unacceptable and this could be followed up accordingly.

Before everybody gets too excited it may turn out to be a limited to a only small number of companies and a 100% inspection may be an overkill. It's the media who are presenting it as some sort of national catastrophe with every house at risk.

According to them it seems that all small business owners are shonks and fraudsters and not to be trusted.

wobbles, "...assume that any Insulation companies that were well established before the scheme came into operation would have continued to do the right thing."

In view of the number of serious building defects being reported annually by the building standards authorities it would be courageous to make that assumption.

In terms of insulation you also need to think about electrical installations, which are not routinely inspected since the corporatisation or privatisation of electricity supply. A substantial two level house we had built not so long ago offers case examples. Just to say from the start that this was an architect designed house with a high standard of finish. Some examples of the electrical defects from the report of the electricity authority were:

- protective covers were left off all power points in walls which had aluminium sarking. Omitting the protective covers meant that if any of the sarking ever came into contact with the exposed power point wiring the walls and roof of the house would become live;

- protective cover left off the rear of a power point for the electric garage door. However that power point was immediately adjacent to the entry to the ceiling making it likely that anyone entering the roof space could touch the exposed wiring; and

- external all-weather power points were part-filled with water from a shower. These were quality fittings that had not been properly installed and sealed.

Just take a look at houses being built and you will be convinced that the incidence of poor work is common. We saw one being built opposite the school and the well known builder had used untreated timber posts in soil to hold up the balcony roof. We watched as bricks were laid around the timber to make columns. White ants would love it.

Shoddy building and cutting corners is far from uncommon in Australian house building and the problems found with insulation installation are red flags for systemic problems that have been in the industry since Adam was a boy. We must lag most western countries in the standard of our building.

I see something else here, proof SH and his like will go to any length to lampoon Labor.
Look hands up RUDD GOT IT WRONG!
Garret is a better singer than politician.
But if it was your roof?
Would you wait?
Would you just get a REAL tradesman who is no thief to inspect your home?
Keep the proof and insist on being paid back.
Now those down lights? are they ever safe? what comes first for your family.
And IF just if it was your party that let public servants do what they do so well not control the criminals who installed it, would you want to pursue them, blame them too?
I again say Rudd will be returned to office bank on it, the no policy's policy ,the screaming about nothing, is not going to work.
I received phone offers that highlighted real crime was involved and I am talking about those installers some of them should be in prison.
The public servants? what do you expect of them, its in their very nature to fail.

Thinker2,

The concept of the roof insulation program was good in employed lower skilled workers in an endeavor that would reduce GHG emissions.

However, the incompetence of its implementation and subsequent remediation was breath taking.

The warnings from the electrical union and the internal job safety review report were hidden from the public and none of the recommended safety protocols implemented. Only after report's people started dying and the fires started, did the extent of the disaster sink in and the plug was pulled.

Even then the required remediation was to inspect every installation which the government accepted, promised, completely failed to do.

That the individual installers cut corners and should be prosecuted is absolutely no excuse. Managers are routinely prosecuted for injuries to employees of sub contractors if the procedures and safe guards were not in place, and if Garret was running Labor Pty he would be facing a jail term.

As for the RSPT, again the basic concept is good, but the implementation was shocking.

For example VAT is considered to be easier and better than GST, so a change would be welcome. However, if at last moment they announced that VAT would be introduced, but not at 10% but at 20%, and allowances for inputs would be restricted, there would be outrage.

This is a direct analogy, as the implementation of the RSPT would change mining Australia from a mid range tax regime to by far the highest taxed in the world. The mining industry justifiable feels ambushed and under siege.

The BER is yet another good concept that was complete stuffed up, both on scale and implementation.

Labor is not guilty of bad intentions just criminal level incompetence.

That's probably a fair shake overall SM, but the Building and Insulation industries
are a minefield it seems for the consumer and workers, and it is fair to say
that deaths were already occurring in those industries and because of practices in
those industries before the scheme.

There probably is a case also with the RSPT for earlier consultation with Miners
causing them to start campaigning earlier anyway. And as for the quantity of the
tax or it's form, I'm not convinced that the tax even it's current form,
will deter mining in Australia.

In this poker game, it is brutal but true to say SM, that the Australian people
hold the aces in this negotiation because they own the minerals in question.

The transition strategy adopted by the gov't signifies the Govt's intention to
implement that tax regardless. The Mining Giants should understand this.

If I was selling my minerals and I am in this instance, I would prefer
to commence negotiations with stake holders acknowledging that
the owners the resource in question are in fact holding the aces
and are therefore in a position to call the game. (Poker analogy again).

The choice is to fold or play basically for the other players.

I think it's a good idea, the tax I mean Shadow Minister.

But I do acknowledge the Gov'ts administrative failings
in it's first term and think that their worst shortcoming
is that they are dreadful at prosecuting their case.

Thinker2,

You have missed the point. A good conceptual tax applied badly is a bad tax. The RSPT is prime example of a tax applied badly.

The probably single largest flaw is the determination of the point at which super profit is applied.

There are typically two values on plant, machinery, vehicles, etc. One is a "book" value, at which assets are depreciated over 5 years as set out in the tax code. So plant after 5 years the "book" value is zero.

In reality, it has a real residual value, which is reflected in annual public accounts, which can be several times the "book" value.

Other resource taxes such as rates on property take this into account and revalue property regularly based on estimated resale value. However, Rudd wants to use the "book" value as the Investment value.

For example a small quarry with an assessed worth say $100m may have a depreciated "book" value of $30m. If it makes a profit of $6m it has a return on assets of 6% and theoretically is not up for RSPT. However, if you use the "book" value it has to pay RSPT on $4.2m of its profits. Thus the RSPT kicks in at about 2% ROI.

This makes it a simple tax grab. If they used the real assessed value the tax windfall would drop from $12bn over 2 years to $2bn.

This is why the miners are enraged, as the tax as applied does not even try to be fair.

The insulation debate has become the greatest example of federal labors failings. It has nothing to do with the original problem that despite much of the in thinking was never as big as most made out. This can be argued extensively but in the end the problem lies at all three levels of government and the flaws in their respective systems of building inspection, OH&S and administrative accountability. The whole problem with the insulation installation could have been fixed by requiring insulation to have a building approval under the local government act. The states would have to come to the party deeming it a complying development stopping delays in approval. This would have meant that the jobs would have been inspected by building surveyors creating a large employment and income stream not just for the insulation industry but for private building surveyors and local government.

No the greatest failings of the Government is their inability to bury issues that are done. The insulation diaster will take years to completely sort out but some how the government cant seem to get the understanding over to the electorate of how this will go and in so doing finish the whole issue.

We can cover many current issues this way as so much public mood is affected by rubbish in news papers and the governments lack of ability to explain its self. I argued the BER once before here and was told i had no idea and was given two web referrals, one to Ray Hadley the other to a comercial housing company. I can only say using these types of references as proof of the overwhelmingly negative point, only confirms my worst fears. The general population are mislead and uninterested in the truth.

No citizen should have to put up with the circumstance we have now where there is no one set of robust, enforceable building regulations governing home building in Australia.

This is a far higher priority than the federal government fooling around with (say) education, but of course all political parties like to pontificate on education because at the federal level it is all care and no responsibility. It was the federal Labor government's blundering foray into home insulation that raised the red flag nationally about the sorry state of the building industry in Australia.

A home is usually the largest single purchase a citizen will make in a lifetime. It is shelter, security and a nest egg for retirement. In the 21st Century it is an outrage that home owners remain at the mercy of an industry where poorly designed homes and shoddy, corner-cutting, beggar-the-consumer construction is commonplace.

Does any homeowner still imagine he/she is 'protected' by the diplomatic toothless tigers in the State building commissions? Quite obviously the lesson of the insulation debacle is a resounding "No".

It is typical of a situation where big money has politicians captive, that all political parties are turning a blind eye to the systemic problems in the home building industry that were unveiled by the rorting of the home insulation subsidy. The furore of excessive quotes and poor work performed for school construction grants provides more examples, as more were needed.

But could the home construction industry guarantee tradesman-like work if it really tried? Now that is a question that no-one really wants to answer, otherwise building standards would be national and compliance with obligatory to protect good builders.

The time that it will take to inspect 150,000 houses will probably
justify the decision to not inspect all the rest because those
not yet inspected would have burnt down by then, so there is probably
no problem with those houses.

This reasoning will probably be applied to hospital waiting lists.
See how much money will be saved if 75% of the waiting list dies off !

Is this Ruddthink or Swannthink ?

True, Labor were left standing when the music stopped, but the shonks and cowboys were already in the building industry to prey upon home owners. They were there during the Howard days and it seems that regardless of who wins federal government in the future, they will still be wreacking havoc with vulnerable homeowners well into the future.

Regarding the insulation mess, the Liberals are making political capital out of the losses and vulnerability of home owners but they are not proposing to change the lax self-regulation that permits the abuses to occur.

Where else in the western democracies would builders get away with laying shower tiles direct to a chipboard floor, leaving out necessary damp courses, or stretching electrical wiring in a roof cavity and get away with it, leaving the homeowner to prove a fault through damage sustained within a six year 'insurance' period?

Roof insulation? Of course there is always suspect work there too and the home insulation grant 'over-cooked' the greed of the usual suspects.

None of the political parties have any credibility in this. However, if Labor had been smarter, they would have proposed national home building laws that required compliance with the Building Code, Australian Standards and manufacturers' installation guidelines as the absolute minimum in home construction.

The building industry is well regulated in this country. Local government acts as the regulatory body, State government is the legislative and planning body and the Australian standards and Building codes are the national regulations. Both the latter are private commercial bodies and this is where the problem lies. These standards are almost a national secret unless you want to pay thousands a year to access them. This information should be freely available as it is in the publics interest to have access to this. Other problems in the system happen because developers complain about the time council takes to approve developments, so the State pushes for bad decisions against the interests of the public.

Issues such as poorly installed water proofing should never happen as this is to be inspected as part of the surveying process. Matters such as insulation though don't seem to be under any great control nor does the electrical trades where most of the problem in the insulation debate lies. Poorly designed down lights and exposed wiring in the roofs of houses and suddenly this gross incompetence that has been allowed to perpetuate itself for generations is all the fault of one very successful government scheme. Despite all the crowing the insulation scheme has worked a treat, it did what it was meant to do and got lots of money into the community in jobs, business and supply. The disaster is the failure of all government over generations and the communities indifference to proper process over profit has been exposed and now punishment will be handed out to one poor little scheme that did it's job. Pity the government won't tell anyone how they are fixing the problem, they prefer to let the disaffected do that.

Let's not complain as we are the culprits. The process for approving a development is slow so we push for the states to make the councils do it quicker and then blame anyone we can when standards are falling. It is our attitude toward profit and expediency over proper process and responsibility that allows these problems to fester.

Seems about right to me Cornflower and nairbe.

It is a shame that such a positive thing turned to s%#t, through
such a low element in our society, spoiling it for everyone.

It's just un-Australian stuff of which the Govt were also victim. I think.

It's also, of the same stuff to attempt to dwell on such issues for political
purpose with far more important things currently at stake, such as the countries
economic future and outlook.

nairbe, "The building industry is well regulated in this country."

Superficially it might appear that way. Why is it though that a builder is under no obligation whatsoever to meet as an absolute minimum standard the (less-than-onerous) BCA - Building Code of Australia?

"The Building Code of Australia is produced and maintained by the ABCB on behalf of the Australian Government and State and Territory Governments. The BCA has been given the status of building regulations by all States and Territories."

http://www.aib.org.au/buildingcodes/bca.htm

Why is it that a homeowner is obliged under the HIA and Master Builders home building contracts and by available contract law to pay in full for practical completion of a house where there is evidence that the building is seriously deficient when compared with the Building Code and the recommendations of the relevant State building standards authority? Examples could be (in addition to those provided earlier): a damp course with drain holes either completely blocked or below the surface of the landscaping; and balustrade anchored to a compressed fibre cement sheet floor (ie not to flooring joists)?

The public is being hoodwinked into believing that there is a certain approved acceptable standard of building that must be attained and that regulators are active and proactive in enforcing those standards. However nothing could be further from the truth - a poor builder can do whatever he wishes and the onus is on the homeowner not only to cite and prove damage as a result of poor building practices, but in so doing to invoke and defend building standards. The onus of proof is always on the home-owner even though he has photographic proof and professional inspection during construction that clearly identified sub-standard work.

As for electrical trades the same problem occurs.

After completing any electrical or insulation work in the ceiling, its always a good idea to put a flock of geese in as part of the testing process. If they can handle it and nothing too radical happens, it should be fine.

This might have to do with the Gov authorizing every Tom, Dick, and Harry to do the insulation. Many of the installers had not existed prior to the program.

What is there to say that installation prior to or after the government's initiative was/is in accord with the BCA? I have given examples that prove the opposite.

I do not object to politicians making political capital out of the government's errors but neither side of politics has undertaken to correct the systemic problems in the home construction industry that not only allowed problems to occur to occur but made it a certainty.

The systemic deficiencies remain, they didn't just go away with the withdrawal of the insulation scheme.