It is good that when Rudd is trying to pretend that the previous Rudd Labor government was great, that a few reminders pop up to show why Rudd was sacked as PM.

"Queensland coroner Michael Barnes said the risk of electrocution “was not appreciated” by government authorities at the outset of the home insulation program, despite it being raised repeatedly by industry representatives.

“It is reasonable to conclude the dangers should have been foreseen and mitigated before three people died in Queensland and another in New South Wales,” Mr Barnes said in his finding today, as he referred a number of employers and supervisors to prosecutors for investigation.

Mr Barnes said the speed at which the stimulus program had been rolled out had placed the needs of the economy ahead of human safety.

“Because a major focus of this program was the stimulation of the economy to counter the effects of the global financial crisis it needed to proceed far more quickly than that, but not at the cost of human life,” he said.

The coroner said it was “primarily failings in the planning and implementation of the (home insulation program) by commonwealth agencies that led to an increased risk of harm”."

I hope that people remember all those that died due to Labor's incompetence in ceilings and at sea.

Shadow Minister,
despite all the rhetoric,all the bo whos and all the sorries no one will suffer an actual penalty. No one will go to prison, no one will lose their job, their superannuation, the home.
This is the real reason why nothing changes... because there are no real PENALTIES.

I have some enormous criticisms of Rudd mark 1, but this is not one of them.

The onus of care for the workers that died rested fairly and squarely with their employers. They were obligated to make sure that their employees were properly trained, which was all-important in an environment where there was a major hazard, ie; electrocution.

The companies involved are the main culprits here.

You can understand that the government would have expected that the people doing this sort of work would have been properly trained.

As you say SM;

<< …Mr Barnes … referred a number of employers and supervisors to prosecutors for investigation. >>

My feeling is that the government should bear some of the responsibility for this tragedy, but certainly not the lion’s share.

There is always a risk. Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about this saga is that a progressive government, implementing good policies, copped a huge backlash, and is less likely to implement anything similar in the future. Consequently, they are more likely to become like Abbott and his Libs – the do-nothing-progressive mob!

SM an element of truth in your thread.
We did not see as many deaths as you seem to want us to beleive but it was badly done.
The 4 deaths, I believe deaths need not have happened.
But as we put more and more such work out to contract the shonks do worse jobs.
Your side would not have done it better, the deaths would still have taken place.
Public servants do let shonky contracts out to crim,s.
The worse hypocrisy is your I hate unions side.
Kicking Labors head, for doing what you would have done, not letting unions get its hands on the cash non union contractors made.
Unionists in such work places are near non existent.
We should not forget claims it was a waste of money are so clearly untrue it is on some lips a known lie.

....The companies involved are the main culprits here.

Yes Ludwig, you are right, however, it was the legislation that allowed these shonks, and there were many, to infiltrate this industry.

Everyone from the local sparky, to the mower man was all of a sudden an insulation expert and more importantly, many of their staff were literally pulled from the dole ques.

Where the government was at MAJOR FAULT, was when they were repeatedly warned BY EXPERTS but chose to push ahead regardless.

The entire project should have been halted after the first near miss, or death, not after the fourth death.

Another poor performance from Rudd was in the way he set Garrett up to take the fall,as it was Garrett who stressed to Rudd that there were major problems yet Rudd insisted they push ahead.

I just hope there is an enquiry into the government of the days role as well.

The minute Rudd calls the election he will be hammered with insulation and border protection, the worst two descisions of labor, both of his making.

Bring it on I say.

Ludwig,

The coronial inquest does not agree with you. While the CEOs will face criminal charges, it was clear that right from the beginning Garret and Rudd were warned that implementing the program in the manner they did had exactly the risks that eventuated, but they went ahead anyway.

It is only the immunity they have as parliamentarians that saves them from criminal or civil prosecution.

Of course they won't be charged with anything after all stupidity is not a crime.

I'm with Ludwig on this issue.

Laws re work safety and training are mainly state matters as is supervision of work in progress.

One good reason for the referendum on federal government/local government financing is the problem of demand management. The currency issuing government is responsible for monitoring demand for both labour and resources and when the private market demand slumps, as it invariably must as confidence wavers, then the sovereign government needs to take stimulatory action such as it did when introducing the cash handouts, the school buildings program, and the insulation program.

Next time there is a slump local government could quickly be given funds for footpaths, kerb and guttering, road maintenance etc. In the circumstances of 2008 the Rudd gang of four did reasonable well.

In NSW and some other states the state government ensured that they creamed off some of the school buildings cash and didn't do enough to ensure home insulation contractors were up to the mark.

It would have been preferable if there had been some shovel ready emergency housing projects. Because there weren't, in 2008 the schools program was a good second choice as that program provided work and demand everywhere in Australia. That increase in demand is what the Rudd cabinet had to aim for.

An excellent point, SM...

"It is only the immunity they have as parliamentarians that saves them from criminal or civil prosecution."

I have added to my criteria list and will only consider voting now for a candidate or party actively campaigning for the repeal of all such parliamentary immunity.

Look Rudd said "Sorry" so that's that. Game, set and match. Bye now gotta zip mate.

....
Look Rudd said "Sorry" so that's that. Game, set and match

chrisgaff1000, what a cold hard, non improve response that is.

If only we wernt talking about the VERY AVOIDABLE loss of four young lives, one could perhaps agree with you and, If that's Rudds view, then I suggest that he doesn't get to comfortable in the lodge.

Not only are politicians exempt from prosecutions, they are also exempt from financial redress.

I would also suggest that we go a bit easy on Garrett, as he fought Rudd on that very issue and was told to JUST DO IT!

At the end of the day, this, along with Rudds other major stuff up, the illegals, will send his prime ministership to an early grave.

Perhaps calling for open debate is not such a great idea.

The Coroner reminds me of the three blindfolded men who tried to identify the elephant.

Speaking of that, the elephant in the room is that builders are not required to comply with as a minimum, the building standards and manufacturers' installation guides. So much for government regulations.

On top of that the government building standards bodies are diplomats. Building is controlled by the big builders and developers who contribute so generously to political parties and swing big sticks during the term of governments. That is why showers in Australian houses leak, damp courses may or may not be installed, houses built by the cut and fill method all smell musty and so on. It is also why decks collapse and ballustrades on buildings give way through corrosion and other predictable problems.

Regardless of what redundant risk assessments and guidelines were drafted for insulation installation, the systemic deficiencies that result in substandard building in Australia would still have been present. There is no comparison with Europe for example.

Was Mr Rudd responsible?

Yes, for throwing money into insulation when there was public infrastructure that could have been built and for long term benefit.

But no, if one is talking about deaths or other problems from poor building practices. Not where the builder with the Gold Card doesn't even have to appear on site and no, he isn't obliged to meet Australian Standards and manufacturers' installation guides as an absolute minimum.

onthebeach, I for one don't blame Rudd for the deaths, however, his haste to implement the scheme, along with his REPEATED choices to ignor expert warnings, and his refusal to take advice from his own minister, Mr Garrett, allowed the tragic deaths to occur.

In other words, he contributed to the deaths, not to mention the waste.

rehctub,

Totally agreed that it was bull at a gate stuff and misconceived from the start. Rudd is the sort of fellow who needs a patient but firm manager. He has no grasp of detail and nor does he ever seem aware of systems that are already in place. You couldn't let him lose as a hospital administrator for example.

Kevin Rudd is nice enough and well meaning if you can forget the self-promotion. He is the sort of personality that would drive an engineer crazy in five seconds flat. No sense of project management or even any appreciation of its worth.

Redundancy in regulations and duplication of management controls don't help, although that is what bureaucrats and politicians are usually about. It makes them look as though they are doing something. It sure helps them avoid understanding the systems that are already in place and the perennial systemic problems that are so often a part of them.

Sorry,
I find Garrett guilty by association and breathing air.

Hi SM,

I have to wonder if the next “apology” might be related to the deaths of hundreds of asylum seekers?

Rudd and Burke are admitting their “mistakes” in relation to border protection. They say they were not “nimble enough” to respond to changes in circumstances. (Translated from Rudd Speak this means the point at which we realised but failed to admit we screwed up).

I guess we will be able to inscribe the headstones with “Sorry, we don’t do nimble”.

As for Garrett, can the parents of those who lost their lives be consoled by the fact that Garrett “wrote letters” about the risks? Juvenile cretins the lot of them, they are a pox on our nation.

After these apologies I have two pages of ALP “policy” for which I expect and apology

I wonder what the record is for the shortest prime ministership in our history, other than ome who died.

We must remember, that once the election is set, he is officially no longer PM.

Personally, I doubt he will be able to remove these monkeys from his back, those being Insulation deaths and Illegals debacle.

rehctub,

Kevin Rudd knows he has Buckleys Chance. His role is to preserve the seats occupied by Bill Shorten et al. It doesn't take much to do that.

His real job is racking up some real nautical miles with the missus in the VIP 737-700 and a very nice plane it is too.

Kevin and Terese are following in the jetstreams of that other jetsetting couple, Carr and his missus. Julia Who and her bloke are still recovering from their globe trotting, being seen simply everywhere and giving advice to simply everyone.

Yay for the Aussie world tourists and 'never you mind' to the taxpayers who pay for it all.

Yes onthebeach, with the Internet the way it is today, there simply are less reasons why they have to travel as much. Just look at Copenhargen and the entourage that accompanied them, remember the $58 a bowl of soup.

Perhaps once they succeed with the roll out of the NBN, if ever, we can demand that they perform many more video links, rather than costly work/holiday trips abroad.

I suggest we domt hold our breaths, for either side of the fence.

Yes rehctub, that’s something that would certainly win Rudd a whole basketful of brownie points. Or Abbott for that matter:–

Give an undertaking to switch from international travel to online communication and conferencing as much as possible.

Well we need something posetive to come out of the NBN cost blowout.

Perhaps this could save billions over the next ten years.

Further to my last post:

I can envisage Abbott actually doing that. But Rudd, the great aspiring international statesman? No chance!

Gentlemen,

I've come into this discussion rather late in the
piece and I hesitated in doing so. However, I think
that this subject should be discussed, politics and
finger-pointing aside.
I know that I'll get criticised for using the source
of "New Matilda" once again. However, I felt that
the following article by Ian Macauley does raise
some valid points that should be added to this
discussion:

http://newmatilda.com/2013/07/08/why-pink-batts-scheme-failed

It also supports what my husband's been telling me.
He's worked in the construction industry for over
40 years as architect, project manager, and construction
manager.

Lexi,

I very much doubt that anyone who has been in the industry for 40 years would agree entirely with the Matilda article you posted. The author is clueless about the construction industry, he doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Please refer your husband to my earlier posts on the subject, in particular the one of Friday, 5 July 2013 3:04:31 PM and see what he says.

It is very unfortunate for the public that while the insulation debacle exposed deep and enduring systemic deficiencies in home building and the regulation of it, none of the political parties have wanted to anything but take politically convenient stances on the subject. All have co-operated in pulling the rug over serious problems in the industry that affect all home buyers.

That doesn't excuse Kevin Rudd for the mistakes he made, in particular that he was a bull at a gate and did not take advice.

Dear onthebeach,

My husband tells me that it is the responsibility
of the tradesmen employing staff to ensure the
safety of the employees, the safety of the building
site, and carry appropriate registration and insurance
before undertaking any work. Home owners who engage
fly-by-night cowboys take the risk of the unknown
consequences. It is unfortunate that local government
building departments did not take the initiative at
the time that the program was announced to regulate
and inspect the tradesmen and the work undertaken.

In all building projects no matter how strictly regulated
accidents happen due to the inexperience of the workers
and the condition of the site.

To blame the federal government at a time of an impending
election shows the desperation of those carrying out the
accusations.

How can we blame the government who merely released the
funding and initiated a program in the interest of
energy conservation.

Governments approve funding for the building of hospitals,
schools, public buildings, public roads, railways,
where inevitably no matter how strictly regulated -
accidents do happen and people get killed. As an example -
check the Snowy Mountains Scheme - how many died on
the building of that and that was funded by the
Liberal government of the time. Blaming governments
for these accidents merely demonstrates the irrationality
of these accusations.

Lexi,

If you and your husband look a bit you will see that I am not disagreeing. But lets deal with the causes, not symptoms.

What I am saying and with plenty of evidence -some examples already given- that while builders and trades are required to be certified and Australian Standards exist, there is NO FORMAL REQUIREMENT, it is NOT OBLIGATORY for the builders and trades to mee those Standards at a minimum and the manufacturers' installation guidelines.

-That in a nutshell is the large iceberg below the insulation devacle. But it is also evidenced in regular balustrade and deck collapses to take examples common in the media. There is no investigative journalism, just entertainment.

-Read the Australian Standards and go to home buildings under construction and you will see before you plenty of instances of problems caused by that deficiemcy

- In addition, there is no requirement whatsoever for the Gold Card holder to actually supervise. In so many cases all he does is sign off.

To top it off, the previous rigorous governmental electrical and other building inspections of years ago no longer exist.

I am not interested in the politics. Except to say that the political parties and the big stakeholders are willing to play politics while sweeping serious systemic problems that affect the homeowners under the carpet.

The CSIRO has found that, prior to the commencement of the HIP, for every 100,000 households with insulation in place for twelve months or more, around 2.4 fire incidents occur per year.

They found that for every 100,000 households installed under the HIP where the insulation has been in place for twelve months or more around 2.5 fire incidents would currently be expected to occur per year.

In other words, as at 31 March 2011, the level of risk for households with insulation installed under the HIP is now effectively no different to the level of fire incident risk that existed before the program was implemented.

The CSIRO expects that once they have all the data that the incidence will drop to 2.2 per 100,000 NOT including an overall reduction due to less heating requirements during the colder months in newly insulated homes.

Over time, the number of fire call-outs has been falling – not rising.

They also found that about 25% of homes did not meet current building standards and many were electrically unsafe before the insulation was installed.

The fault of the Government was they trusted that small businessmen would do the right thing. All the guidelines and laws for the installation of room insulation were already in place and were expected to be followed.
If you send a parcel somewhere by courier you would expect that the driver would be licenced and follow the road rules and if they ran a red light while delivering your parcel, are you responsible or is the driver?

By the way, four people died in roof space accidents under the previous government as well.

How many have read the official Hawke Report of the HIP scheme and how many get their spin from Murdoch and shock-jocks?

Lexi,

The responsibility for safety does not rest with any one person. It includes the owner of the premises, the worker, his supervisor, the line managers, the CEO of the company, and ultimately the project initiators. So in a nutshell there is no one involved that can wash their hands of responsibility.

As an electrical engineer involved with projects for a couple of decades I know that there is more legislation, codes of practice etc, for electrical work than all other fields put together. Large projects have several people dedicated only to checking safe work compliance in this field, and still mistakes are made. Small start up companies dealing with roof insulation are unlikely to have even one licensed installation electrician employed, and are likely to be spectacularly unprepared.

Both Garret and Rudd were warned repeatedly of these exact risks and were given recommendations to minimize these risks, and ignored them. The coroner spelled this out clearly when declaring them culpable.

Wobbles,

When the project started, there was a spike in house fires that far exceeded existing norms, this was reduced after new guidelines were put in place and repair work was done. Read the report, not just the end result.

We are talking about home building, residential construction.

The management controls are vested in:

- the formal accreditation of tradesmen and builders, in Queensland the Gold Card; and

- the building code as expressed now in the Australian Standards, which can be modified by States.

Make no mistake, the Card holdimg contractor is directly and solely responsible for all aspects of the work including safety on the site.

However, where cowboys and corner-cutting operators are concerned it is like trapping a rat in a wire netting cage. Because as stated a number of times already, there is no obligation whatsoever on the builder or tradesman to meet the Australian Standards and manufacturers' installation guides as an absolute minimum.

Also, the way contract law works in respect of home construction is that it is impossible until practical completion has been attained and payment made for all stages of work up to and including practical completion, for there to be any complaint or action against the builder for sub-standard work and unsatisfactory substitutions and certainly no withholding of payment (deemed a breach of contract) by the home owner.

Even after practical completion with photos and signed depositions (by experts such as engineers) of work that does not meet the relevant Standards, a home owner will not be able to further a claim in the building Tribunal unless the homeowner can show evidence of and prove damage resulting from the substandard work. Proving the work did not meet the Standards and/or manufacturer's installation instructions is never enough.

For example, external concrete landscaping could be at a height that drains water falling on it directly into the weep hole of the wall of the dwelling. That obvious fault will not be corrected unless damage is proved to the wall. Even then the weep holes might just be plugged with putty, leaving the walls without an effective damp course. A 'good' builder wouldn't do that, but many builders do. They all have Gold Cards too.

to be continued..

contd..

Homeowners believe quite reasonably, but wrongly, that the Standards and the Gold Cards give a warranty of satisfactory work. But nothing could be further from the truth because the key control is missing: there is no formal requirement for the trades to meet the available Standards.

The sole protection for a homeowner is in finding a 'good' builder first up. But how is a homeowner to make that choice where the shoddy builders also have Gold Cards and the diplomats in the guvvy building standards give them heaps of rope? It is a waste of time asking other homeowners because most are as clueless as you might be about building.

It takes a determined effort over years by a cowboy builder to finally be rounded up by the guvvy diploimats and then it is usually only because he has become insolvent.

Builders have the protection of the lobbying power of their unions, such as the HIA and Master Builders. Politicians listen where donations are made to their election campaigns (and sweeteners between elections). The homeowner is small beer, always forgotten. But the expenditure on shelter is likely the citizen's biggest purchase in his/her lifetime. Whoever the main political parties represent, they sure don't represent home owners.

Thank You one and all for your civilised responses.
In politics blame will be sought and applied no
matter what the circumstances in the interest
of political gain. After all it is not about pink batts,
energy conservation, building regulations, but putting
blame on the opposing politicians to score points in
the public domain during an election year.
At least, we've been able to take part in a more
meaningful discussion on this topic - raising some very
valid points.

Nothing wrong with the HIP idea, but plenty wrong in the way the Rudd govt implemented it. My academic piece has been vindicated by all official inquiries so far, the Rudd govt was a joke in regard to the HIP.

Lexi, "After all it is not about pink batts, energy conservation, building regulations, but putting blame on the opposing politicians to score points in the public domain during an election year."

Accountability doesn't stop when the government thinks it might have an election. It is right and proper that ministers and Prime ministers are held accountable for their decisions.

Home insulation was a turkey decision from the start. PM Rudd over-ruled the responsible minister and went ahead precipitously against the advice of the responsible minister and others. There has to be accountability for that and so far, Mr Rudd has tendered an apology, that is all.

The Westminster system of government in Australia must have changed a lot because it isn't so long ago that a minister, in this case a Prime Minister, would have tendered his resignation. Some would say that Mr Rudd shows considerable gall for a quick apology then zip.

onthebeach,

Talking about "accountability," :

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/politics/throwing-truth-overboard-to-win-an-election/

SIEVX also comes to mind.

And:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/rudds-return-ruffles-reckless-abbott/

Clearly Mr Abbott prefers not to discuss his own "sins" of the
past or those of Mr Howard, nor does he want to discuss policies,
or debate, all he wants is to keep on taking pot shots at
the PM. Although I suspect he and the Coalition are not going to
be so successful this time around. I predict a change of
leadership before long.

BTW: According to Dennis Pryor in his booklet,
"Political Pryorities," he tells us that:

"Westminster System - The illusion that the Australian
government works, or should work, on the same principles
as the British government. The similarities between the
two systems are largely those of decor, like the use
of the mace. The major difference between the two systems
is that Australia is a federation, a concept totally
incomprehensible to the British. An appeal to the
"Westminster system" is a slogan used by Opposition parties
in an attempt to trick their opponents into foolish
resignations."

How easily you pass off deaths, Lexi.

Rudd was personally responsible for the insulation decisions and he should resign. A dismissive 'Sorry, I have to Zip' is not enough.

Not only did Rudd waste taxpayers' money on the ill-conceived home insulation debacle but the Australian taxpayer is now likely to pay for compensation to victims' families, which is the only decent thing to do.

Lexi,

The accusation was not made by one politician against another. This was made by the coroner, an independent Judge.

Secondly the "accountability" you call for

1 The Siev X - a foreign vessel piloted by foreigners sinking in international waters. Why does any Australian bear any responsibility?
2 Children over board. Again a foreign vessel in international waters. The claims were originally made by navy servicemen, and repeated by the coalition at the time.

Finally, Rudd then bears responsibility for the hundreds/thousands lost at sea since he started the boats.

As I have suggested before, do a poll and ask if the HIP was a policy success. What do you think result will be 80-20% against?

Some people are just so blinkered they can even defend the indefensible.

Gentlemen,

I thought that Ian Macauley's article was a fair one
and he did explain the Coroner's Reports
and all the legalities involved.
It was an intelligent and well reasoned
summation. But of course it would not appeal to those
who want to make political mileage out of the situation.
And that's understandable.

However, I shall leave it with you to re-read:

http://newmatilda.com/2013/07/08/why-pink-batts-scheme-failed

I have nothing further to add to the subject.

Cheers.

Lexi,

If you really want to go over the same ground again, a good starting point would be to ask why there wasn't a comprehensive risk analysis for Rudd's policy and no risk management. That is one of the common criticisms of Rudd and the Labor/Greens government, that millions of dollars of TAXPAYERS' MONEY were throw about and wasted.

What about priorities? How could home insulation have risen to the top as a spending priority when the government was over-stretching infrastructure through importing the equivalent of a big town (130,000) migrants a year? What about roads, water and so on?

As a partisan you must be always justifying what labor has done. But surely this was one debate where something deeper could have come out of it?

Anybody care to know where the Insulation scheme actually came from?

When Rudd was looking for ways to quickly stimulate the economy as the GFC took hold he came across that Insulation scheme proposal, with all the costs and environmental benefits already prepared.

It had been prepared for future reference and had been left behind by the previous Environment Minister - Malcolm Turnbull.

Was it the scheme that was wrong or its implementation?

Rache,

The problem was in the implementation. This was specifically mentioned in the coroner's report, and Rudd was warned specifically on the implementation.

Lexi,

Ian Macauley is a left wing apologist and was trying to ignore the multiple warning that the chief architect of the scheme "KRudd" got and ignored. This was not a failing of the government bureaucrats, this was directly due to the program being implemented without adequate safeguards.

Like a plaintive sheep calling for a lost lamb this thread try,s to convict Rudd and the ALP.
I an ex union official, and construction worker know some inconvenient truths.
Long before these boys deaths can be blamed on our then PM other things must be looked at.
It has been part of any such work, for decades, for the boss to ensure workplace safety.
That is to train and inform his workers.
To give them the things they need to be safe at work.
To warn of the dangers.
And in part a pre start briefing before work starts on any job.
Those who quite tragically died are not true tradesmen.
And it is apparent some just should not have been in those roofs.
A long list of should not,s exist.
At the end of that long list, yes it is probably true, it was handled badly by Rudd, are we then to convict every prime minister for every death on a federal or state funded job?
Is this country,s safety so weal only the PM is to be held to account.

SM,

Do you ever look at a subject from
various points of view?
Or is condemnation easier than thinking?

rehctub was on target from the start with his:

"Where the government was at MAJOR FAULT, was when they were repeatedly warned BY EXPERTS but chose to push ahead regardless.

...

Another poor performance from Rudd was in the way he set Garrett up to take the fall, as it was Garrett who stressed to Rudd that there were major problems yet Rudd insisted they push ahead."

Now that the lid has been lifted on the mess by the Coroner, Rudd13 reckons he can get away with a 'Sorry, gitta Zip' because he has a VIP 737-700 to ride.

Culpable, or at fault. He failed to spell out how to do this work. Wouldn't you think business would have enough nous to know if something was not safe. People have to be treated like idiots, and have everything written down for them.

The weird thing is that those who criticse lack of regulation, are the same people supporting Abbott's push to "cut red tape".

Which is it guys?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-08/coalition-releases-plans-to-cut-red-tape/4807046

"Mr Abbott says Australian businesses are "suffocating" under red tape and green tape."

P,

I don't believe anyone has called for more regulation, only better organisation, which as we all know is a weak point for Labor.

Health and safety legislation calls for risk analysis for all projects, and where risks are identified, for appropriate action to be taken to avoid or mitigate these risks. A risk assessment for the pink batts was done and the risks brought up were ignored by KRudd.

If this was a company doing this instead of a government department KRudd would be facing a jail term.

Insulation is an ongoing job, so where is the difference. Insulation is not a trade. Homeowners can do their own. Somehow that is different. Maybe it was the rush for money by hungry businesses, and insulation makers, hiring laborers and other sidekicks in their rush and ignoring any instruction.
I know Bradford insulation were supplying people as contractors, if it wasn't their house they had to sign a contractors form.
The govt instigated the job, and that is as far as it went. If they had given instructions on how to lay insulation there would be cause for concern.
House fires and deaths by laying insulation will continue to happen.

Up until it was closed off through deaths occurring, the federal government spent $2.45million of TAXPAYERS' money on the federally initiated scheme.

Only a political partisan would maintain that the federal government shouldn't be held accountable for safety problems and for obtaining value for money and at the very least for ensuring that its program was not damaging to the very citizens it purported to assist.

The industry warned the Rudd government of the danger of aluminium foil insulation in particular. There is electrical wiring in the roof of homes.

<CEO of Master Electricians Australia Malcolm Richards said the home insulation scheme was rushed from the beginning.

"It was too fast, without adequate safeguards and it encouraged people to cut corners and to lower safety standards in an attempt to gain quick money, " he said.

He said he personally raised safety concerns with federal government ministers at the time.

"I met personally with Peter Garrett a number of times personally to impact on him the importance of improving the safety in the scheme," he said.

....

On Thursday afternoon Queensland Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had questions to answer over the deaths of three Queenslanders in the failed program.

"Kevin Rudd took ownership of the scheme under his first prime ministership and the responsibility should lie with him," Mr Bleijie said.

“These tragedies were preventable. In April 2009, Queensland’s Building Services Authority warned the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet about the risks but it never responded."

In April 2010 Mr Rudd publicly apologised to the families of the four men who died.

Mr Bleijie said the federal Labor Government’s rush to conceive and implement the program contributed to a lack of proper safeguards, which in turn contributed to the deaths of three Queensland men>

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bosses-could-be-charged-over-insulation-deaths-20130704-2pdc2.html