Lest we forget? The home insulation scheme ...

With the government cutting the rebate to $1,200, the Department of Environment was flooded with claims in November 2009 in order to beat the deadline. During November, 235,869 properties were allegedly insulated, 75,000 more than in October and almost 100,000 more than in December or January 2010.

Even after the rebate reduction, John Shinnick (Climate Control Insulation) indicated that his company was being undercut by quotes from other companies who “simply charge the $1,200 regardless of what the job requires”. “That means they will cut open a bag of insulation and halve it to cover the space” as “they are in it for a quick buck, they get in and they get out”. No wonder Silverline Insulation founder Peter Venn, which had been installing foil insulation for 23 years and had never had an accident, was compelled to state that longstanding businesses “were being destroyed by a badly regulated government program”.

On May 25, 2010, the Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Department revealed 961 cases where an insulation installer had sought payment for work at an address where a claim had already been paid. Data also revealed that there were 3,521 installers registered and compliant under the scheme, but that 3,448 installers were now deregistered or non-compliant.

There were also reports of untrained foreigners, including backpackers, being used as door-to-door salesmen and to install batts. Some sales people being investigated for bullying renters to sign $1,200 rebate forms for batts they claimed were ordered by landlords. And foreign call centres (claiming to represent the government) conning some households with perfectly good existing insulation to be replaced sometimes with quotes based on Google Earth images of houses.

On February 10, Garrett (confronting calls to resign) described the rebate program as “the most significant delivery of ceiling insulation and the most significant delivery of effective greenhouse gas emissions for households we have ever seen”.

But even potential benefits were tempered by one estimate that went before the Senate committee during March 2010 which suggested that 40 per cent of Chinese insulation batts failed to fulfill thermal efficiency claims, and that $58 million of taxpayers’ funds may have been spent on such substandard batts.

And while Rudd argued during March 2010 that the current rate of fires relating to housing insulation was less than the previous year, an 18th fire - caused by insulation – had occurred in Melbourne by March 17, compared to just seven such fires from January to June 2009 and 31 from July to December 2009.

Rudd, Combet, Gillard and Garrett refused requests to appear before the Senate committee during May and June 2010.

No wonder. The home insulation scheme is a national policy embarrassment that demonstrates what can happen when a government has little regard for widespread warnings from a variety of players. It is a policy example that tells us just how bad a government can be, and why extensive scrutiny is always needed.