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.