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.