Following on from the Australian catastrophe in subsidising home owners who can't be bothered paying for their own energy bill savings, there is now the consequences of the New Zealand scheme. However, what it says about the general public speaks volumes about the trust they have in the state, trust that anyone who has spent time working with the bureaucracy knows is misplaced.
The New Zealand Herald reports that many insulation installers are upset that:
"the government subsidies are allowing competitors to hike their prices and still undercut them using taxpayers' money.
They say customers are avoiding them because they see government approval to offer subsidies of up to $1300 for insulation and $500 for energy-efficient heating as a "badge of quality".
Of 249 companies wanting to join the $347 million scheme for the next four years, 60 were chosen based on factors including geographical coverage, financial stability and their ability to carry out self-audits."
So in other words, 60 firms are suckling off the state tit, whereas the rest are out in the cold, helping to PAY for their competition to undercut them.
It speaks volumes that the EECA subsidy is seen to be a guarantee of quality, the same stupid mistake Australians made thinking government approved installers were somehow a higher standard. Seriously, do people think bureaucrats exist that check the quality and standards of insulation installers? Do people think that if a state approved installer does work for them that they have a greater degree of sanction if it turns out to be poor quality?
The notion of this is ridiculous. I've known literally hundreds of bureaucrats, most of whom know the limits of their competence. There simply are NOT people out there able to check this sort of thing. Yet people believe the state is somehow benevolent and offers some sort of reassurance.
Now I oppose the fundamentals of the scheme. Yes it might save energy bills, but that is a private good. Those with insulation shouldn't pay for those without to save money. Yes it might improve health of some, but when are people meant to take responsibility for the cold and damp in their homes?
The political reaction to this is predictable. Energy Minister Gerry Brownlie effectively endorsed the idea that the scheme ensures a "tight control" on quality of work, although it isn't clear quite how that quality is being ensured. This contradicts EECA claims that just because some aren't part of the subsidy scheme does not mean their work is poor quality. So is Brownlee just knifing those who don't get taxpayers money to run their business?
Labour spokesman Chris Hipkins thinks the subsidy should be offered to everyone, doing a Peter Garrett.
You see a better response is this:
- Stop the subsidy scheme;
- Tell homeowners that if they want to make energy savings, they should buy their own insulation and use recommendations, word of mouth and other means to explore the market to find good installers and suppliers;
- Tell homeowners who already have insulation that it is unfair to tax those who already have insulated their homes to subsidise those who haven't;
- Used the savings to cut the budget deficit, working towards tax cuts WITHOUT countervailing new taxes. Hiking GST wont help people pay for insulation.
After all, if people paid less taxes they would have more money to spend on discretionary expenditure, and if would rather pay higher heating bills than insulation, why should nanny state save them?
UPDATE: Not PC also has a recommendation of a GOOD installer. A recommendation I'd trust over any government "endorsement" that apparently isn't one.
25 February 2010
24 February 2010
How can he sleep when the roofs are burning
Who couldn't see this coming?
Peter Garrett, former singer for band Midnight Oil, former member of the far-left Nuclear Disarmament Party, now committed Christian, family man and Australian Labor Party MP for Kingsford Smith, New South Wales and Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts in Australia, has presided over one of the most monumental disasters in recent Australian Federal Government history.
The blame, of course, is not just his. There is a line of bureaurats who should be rendered unemployable as well, but the story is one of how much government can screw up with other people's money.
It started with a package that may sound familiar. A plan to use taxpayers' money to subsidise the insulation of homes of those who couldn't be arsed paying for it themselves. Garrett proudly launched the plan in June 2009 with this press release saying "From today, householders can start shopping around and working out which registered installer and type of insulation is right for them"
In essence, the taxpayer would be forced to pay the value of insulating a home up to A$1,600, and a whole series of government approved installers were appointed to undertake the scheme.
In addition:
"As well as the ceiling insulation offer for homeowners, there is also insulation assistance of up to $1,000 available for renters and landlords. It is expected around 2.9 million households Australia-wide will benefit from these insulation offers.
The Energy Efficient Homes Package also provides a rebate of $1,600 to help eligible home-owners, landlords or tenants replace their electric storage hot water systems with solar or heat pump hot water systems."
The motivation was to "create jobs" (by taking money out of the hands of some and handing it to the insulation industry) and to contribute to Australia's climate change objectives.
The cost was estimated at A$4 billion, so we are talking A$200 per Australian!
The result?
The Australian reports around a million homes have been insulated, of which 160,000 have apparently "shoddy ceiling batts", 80,000 homes have "potentially dangerous insulation", 1,000 roofs have been "electrified", 93 houses have caught fire and 4 deaths have resulted.
Despite extensive questioning, the Australian Federal Government doesn't know which homes are at risk, how it is going to undertake a risk assessment or how it will fix it.
The scheme has been terminated as of last Friday.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports Aussie PM Kevin Rudd has taken ultimate responsibility, indicating Garrett wont be a sacrificial lamb. Interesting given it is election year in Australia.
Why should all this happen?
Well the incentives were all wrong.
For starters, those who take other people's money don't take the same care with it as those whose it was the first place. Those who set up this scheme knew none of them would ever have any financial responsibility for the failure.
Secondly, those who installed the insulation and the hot water systems also knew it was a case of install, then claim. They knew their work wouldn't be inspected, the customer wasn't THAT careful since it was being installed for free and if there was a need to take a short-cut, they would still be paid.
Thirdly, the home owners whose homes are affected, having no financial relationship with the installer, had little leverage after the fact.
The bottom line is that if home owners get a financial advantage from insulation and improving heating/air conditioning systems, they can make the judgment themselves about spending money on it. Why all taxpayers, including those who already spent their money on such improvements, and those who don't own homes, should subsidise those who don't, is astonishing.
It is the sort of collective groupspeak that claims "we will save" a fortune if everyone does it that blinds public policy to what is simply a matter of private benefit. I save nothing if my neighbour saves money on heating or air conditioning, it is of no benefit to me. If I asked my neighbour to help me pay for insulation because it would save my power bills, and might even save costs of health care, the neighbour would rightfully tell me to leave, politely.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports the result is that the insulation industry is in crisis. This, of course, serves them right for trusting government and wanting to benefit off the back of taxpayers rather than customers.
"Several companies have been running their factories 24 hours a day, seven days a week for months, creating a huge glut of batts that are now largely unwanted in the wake of the rebate scheme being axed"
Tough, when you deal with politicians then sometimes you pay the price. Taxpayers had no choice to pay for you being a party to this filthy little arrangement, now you pay. You no longer have nanny state to pay your bills, and you've screwed things up so badly that domestic private consumers don't want to touch it. How sad, but now an opportunity for NZ installers to source some cheap stock?
"Fletcher Insulation makes about 40 per cent of Australia's insulation, and managing director David Isaacs said he expected 8000 jobs to be lost from the industry."
Nice own goal there for both the industry and the government. Nice job creator Labor. Sad for those losing their jobs, but how many of them thought the Labor Party would look after them?
How many will still, like sheeple, tick Labor this year?
Peter Garrett, former singer for band Midnight Oil, former member of the far-left Nuclear Disarmament Party, now committed Christian, family man and Australian Labor Party MP for Kingsford Smith, New South Wales and Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts in Australia, has presided over one of the most monumental disasters in recent Australian Federal Government history.
The blame, of course, is not just his. There is a line of bureaurats who should be rendered unemployable as well, but the story is one of how much government can screw up with other people's money.
It started with a package that may sound familiar. A plan to use taxpayers' money to subsidise the insulation of homes of those who couldn't be arsed paying for it themselves. Garrett proudly launched the plan in June 2009 with this press release saying "From today, householders can start shopping around and working out which registered installer and type of insulation is right for them"
In essence, the taxpayer would be forced to pay the value of insulating a home up to A$1,600, and a whole series of government approved installers were appointed to undertake the scheme.
In addition:
"As well as the ceiling insulation offer for homeowners, there is also insulation assistance of up to $1,000 available for renters and landlords. It is expected around 2.9 million households Australia-wide will benefit from these insulation offers.
The Energy Efficient Homes Package also provides a rebate of $1,600 to help eligible home-owners, landlords or tenants replace their electric storage hot water systems with solar or heat pump hot water systems."
The motivation was to "create jobs" (by taking money out of the hands of some and handing it to the insulation industry) and to contribute to Australia's climate change objectives.
The cost was estimated at A$4 billion, so we are talking A$200 per Australian!
The result?
The Australian reports around a million homes have been insulated, of which 160,000 have apparently "shoddy ceiling batts", 80,000 homes have "potentially dangerous insulation", 1,000 roofs have been "electrified", 93 houses have caught fire and 4 deaths have resulted.
Despite extensive questioning, the Australian Federal Government doesn't know which homes are at risk, how it is going to undertake a risk assessment or how it will fix it.
The scheme has been terminated as of last Friday.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports Aussie PM Kevin Rudd has taken ultimate responsibility, indicating Garrett wont be a sacrificial lamb. Interesting given it is election year in Australia.
Why should all this happen?
Well the incentives were all wrong.
For starters, those who take other people's money don't take the same care with it as those whose it was the first place. Those who set up this scheme knew none of them would ever have any financial responsibility for the failure.
Secondly, those who installed the insulation and the hot water systems also knew it was a case of install, then claim. They knew their work wouldn't be inspected, the customer wasn't THAT careful since it was being installed for free and if there was a need to take a short-cut, they would still be paid.
Thirdly, the home owners whose homes are affected, having no financial relationship with the installer, had little leverage after the fact.
The bottom line is that if home owners get a financial advantage from insulation and improving heating/air conditioning systems, they can make the judgment themselves about spending money on it. Why all taxpayers, including those who already spent their money on such improvements, and those who don't own homes, should subsidise those who don't, is astonishing.
It is the sort of collective groupspeak that claims "we will save" a fortune if everyone does it that blinds public policy to what is simply a matter of private benefit. I save nothing if my neighbour saves money on heating or air conditioning, it is of no benefit to me. If I asked my neighbour to help me pay for insulation because it would save my power bills, and might even save costs of health care, the neighbour would rightfully tell me to leave, politely.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports the result is that the insulation industry is in crisis. This, of course, serves them right for trusting government and wanting to benefit off the back of taxpayers rather than customers.
"Several companies have been running their factories 24 hours a day, seven days a week for months, creating a huge glut of batts that are now largely unwanted in the wake of the rebate scheme being axed"
Tough, when you deal with politicians then sometimes you pay the price. Taxpayers had no choice to pay for you being a party to this filthy little arrangement, now you pay. You no longer have nanny state to pay your bills, and you've screwed things up so badly that domestic private consumers don't want to touch it. How sad, but now an opportunity for NZ installers to source some cheap stock?
"Fletcher Insulation makes about 40 per cent of Australia's insulation, and managing director David Isaacs said he expected 8000 jobs to be lost from the industry."
Nice own goal there for both the industry and the government. Nice job creator Labor. Sad for those losing their jobs, but how many of them thought the Labor Party would look after them?
How many will still, like sheeple, tick Labor this year?
23 February 2010
Herald misses point on Radio NZ
The NZ Herald editorial makes this statement:
"The quality of Radio NZ's service will be compromised for a minor monetary gain at a time when the broadcaster says audiences are at an all-time high"
Nonsense. If you are worried about the quality of Radio NZ's service (a subjective measure, but I'll leave it to you), then you CAN do something about it.
Donate money to Radio NZ.
Not used to paying for things you like? You should be. It's what you do if you subscribe to Sky TV, or buy books and magazines, go to the movies etc. Why is this any different?
Stop wanting to bludge off of other taxpayers for your own personal choice. If audiences are at an all time high then great. You too can set up a campaign to support Radio NZ.
Seems a bit hard? Well you might learn something. Businesses don't (typically) get handouts to start up, neither do charities.
Or would you rather spend your money on dessert, a bottle of wine, a holiday, some CDs you like? Because when it comes down to it, you only care enough about Radio NZ to lobby the state to make others pay for it.
"The quality of Radio NZ's service will be compromised for a minor monetary gain at a time when the broadcaster says audiences are at an all-time high"
Nonsense. If you are worried about the quality of Radio NZ's service (a subjective measure, but I'll leave it to you), then you CAN do something about it.
Donate money to Radio NZ.
Not used to paying for things you like? You should be. It's what you do if you subscribe to Sky TV, or buy books and magazines, go to the movies etc. Why is this any different?
Stop wanting to bludge off of other taxpayers for your own personal choice. If audiences are at an all time high then great. You too can set up a campaign to support Radio NZ.
Seems a bit hard? Well you might learn something. Businesses don't (typically) get handouts to start up, neither do charities.
Or would you rather spend your money on dessert, a bottle of wine, a holiday, some CDs you like? Because when it comes down to it, you only care enough about Radio NZ to lobby the state to make others pay for it.
22 February 2010
The triumph of mediocrity over aspiration
Although I did not vote for National, or any of the parties keeping the National led government in power, I did have some optimism that there would be a positive change. I knew it would barely be a fraction of what I wanted, and that it would be overlaid with the sort of folksy platitudes that patronise the vast majority of the population, most of whom are too uninterested to seriously challenge it.
However, there were, at least, two reasons to smile after the 2008 election. Firstly, Helen Clark and her government of control freaks was ousted. Nine years of government that believed it almost always had a role, to spend other people's money on things, to regulate, to set up strategies and inquiries, was finally at an end. Secondly, John Key is, at least, a self-made man. He at least in part represents the dream of many, so at least there would be some belief that the incoming administration would be in support of business, and would be sceptical about government providing solutions. Enough rhetoric had been thrown about by some in the National Party that there could be some hope of less spending, less government and less taxes, albeit at a fairly glacial pace.
This has proven to be, by and large, a delusion. Even the low expectations of optimism I had, are being frittered away.
The recent proposals to engage in the Roger Douglas style tax reform of the 1980s, again, by hiking GST and dropping some income tax, smack of the triumph of mediocrity over aspiration. National apparently believes that all of the bureaucracies that current exist have merit. It believes that the current levels of welfare dependency and the structures of both individual and corporate welfare set up by Labour, should largely remain intact. Indeed, the belief in the role of the state is such that National is embarking on road building plans that under the evaluation criteria it once stood by, are not worth it.
The arguments in favour of consumption taxes over income taxes may be quite solid, but the impact of this sort of reshuffling will be minor. It wont make a smidgen of difference to get New Zealand to be more productive, dynamic and innovative. It still smacks of the low value commodity based economy terrified its exchange rate would actually be worth enough to import high value goods from the rest of the world.
Why? Because National has demonstrated, once again, that it is not a party of serious change, a party that will shrink the role of the state and grant tax cuts as a result. It is a party to reshuffle the deck, a party too terrified to contemplate the sort of education policies even the British Conservative Party is gleefully waltzing into an election with. It is terrified of saying the word privatisation, as much as it did when it should have been confronting the economic retards of Winston Peters and Jim Anderton, though who really thinks that the state owning three competing power generation and retail companies is a serious long term strategy for the energy sector?
It is true to form, and sadly ACT is not making anything of this when it could and should. It could, positively, be arguing for things to go further, and National could give it free rein to make the sort of arguments it knows Labour never could - whilst remaining aloof from them (the implication being obvious - Labour would never advocate less government).
What will punish National the most is the simple fact that the increase in GST will fall most hard on those on lowest incomes. If you wanted to hand some rhetoric and a rallying cry for the left on a plate, increasing GST does it. For it not only hurts those who spend most of their earnings, but it also encourages the growth in a black market, a growth in trading via TradeMe to help avoid GST (and other taxes). The most recent TVNZ Colmar Brunton poll should, if Key was doing a Helen Clark, give room to pause. National was never elected to INCREASE ANY taxes, and the sleight of hand that it demonstrates is not fooling many.
Of course, given this is partly the brainchild of Bill English - the man who delivered National its most crushing defeat in 2002, because he couldn't confront Helen Clark's forceful (and believable) commitment to her principles, despite that government having legislated over private contracts with ACC and forcing Air NZ into a crisis because of its own dithering and nationalism.
However, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe New Zealanders just like governments that look like they are "doing something".
However, there were, at least, two reasons to smile after the 2008 election. Firstly, Helen Clark and her government of control freaks was ousted. Nine years of government that believed it almost always had a role, to spend other people's money on things, to regulate, to set up strategies and inquiries, was finally at an end. Secondly, John Key is, at least, a self-made man. He at least in part represents the dream of many, so at least there would be some belief that the incoming administration would be in support of business, and would be sceptical about government providing solutions. Enough rhetoric had been thrown about by some in the National Party that there could be some hope of less spending, less government and less taxes, albeit at a fairly glacial pace.
This has proven to be, by and large, a delusion. Even the low expectations of optimism I had, are being frittered away.
The recent proposals to engage in the Roger Douglas style tax reform of the 1980s, again, by hiking GST and dropping some income tax, smack of the triumph of mediocrity over aspiration. National apparently believes that all of the bureaucracies that current exist have merit. It believes that the current levels of welfare dependency and the structures of both individual and corporate welfare set up by Labour, should largely remain intact. Indeed, the belief in the role of the state is such that National is embarking on road building plans that under the evaluation criteria it once stood by, are not worth it.
The arguments in favour of consumption taxes over income taxes may be quite solid, but the impact of this sort of reshuffling will be minor. It wont make a smidgen of difference to get New Zealand to be more productive, dynamic and innovative. It still smacks of the low value commodity based economy terrified its exchange rate would actually be worth enough to import high value goods from the rest of the world.
Why? Because National has demonstrated, once again, that it is not a party of serious change, a party that will shrink the role of the state and grant tax cuts as a result. It is a party to reshuffle the deck, a party too terrified to contemplate the sort of education policies even the British Conservative Party is gleefully waltzing into an election with. It is terrified of saying the word privatisation, as much as it did when it should have been confronting the economic retards of Winston Peters and Jim Anderton, though who really thinks that the state owning three competing power generation and retail companies is a serious long term strategy for the energy sector?
It is true to form, and sadly ACT is not making anything of this when it could and should. It could, positively, be arguing for things to go further, and National could give it free rein to make the sort of arguments it knows Labour never could - whilst remaining aloof from them (the implication being obvious - Labour would never advocate less government).
What will punish National the most is the simple fact that the increase in GST will fall most hard on those on lowest incomes. If you wanted to hand some rhetoric and a rallying cry for the left on a plate, increasing GST does it. For it not only hurts those who spend most of their earnings, but it also encourages the growth in a black market, a growth in trading via TradeMe to help avoid GST (and other taxes). The most recent TVNZ Colmar Brunton poll should, if Key was doing a Helen Clark, give room to pause. National was never elected to INCREASE ANY taxes, and the sleight of hand that it demonstrates is not fooling many.
Of course, given this is partly the brainchild of Bill English - the man who delivered National its most crushing defeat in 2002, because he couldn't confront Helen Clark's forceful (and believable) commitment to her principles, despite that government having legislated over private contracts with ACC and forcing Air NZ into a crisis because of its own dithering and nationalism.
However, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe New Zealanders just like governments that look like they are "doing something".
19 February 2010
Pathetic reparations? Blame ACC
According to the NZ Herald, four cyclists were badly injured, one critically, because Jennifer Lea Speakman didn’t look as she pulled out onto the road with her car.
She has lost her driving licence for six months and has been ordered to pay a paltry NZ$1000 reparations to each of the victims.
A friend of the victims calls the reparations “pathetic”. So they are, but then so they should be if one accepts the so-called “social contract” of ACC.
Speakman’s car insurance is paying out the property damage costs in replacing the bikes, which of course is fine. However, ACC creates a completely new dimension. This is one that many New Zealanders, exposed to TV legal dramas from overseas, are probably not fully aware of.
The right to sue for damages as a result of the negligence of another is gone, except in the context of exemplary damages.
In theory, as Speakman paid ACC levies both associated with her motor vehicle licence and in fuel tax, she has paid into socialised insurance scheme, much loved by the left, designed to provide compensation to the victims.
Its fundamental basis is no fault based compensation. ACC is meant to cover the needs of the victims. She should basically have walked away with simply losing her driving licence and paying court costs, if you really believe ACC is fair and reasonable. The advantages of ACC are clear, in that it offers compensation fairly quickly and without the hassle of court, but the disadvantages are also clear. It offers no deterrent to bad behaviour, no incentives to good behaviour, and the compensation is never particularly great.
If you don’t think ACC is fair and reasonable (and let’s be honest here, no other country has ACC), then you’d return the right to sue. That would mean Speakman would face significant claims for loss of income, emotional trauma, pain and suffering because of her negligence. A fair deterrent to making a foolish mistake. More likely, Speakman would have insurance to cover such an eventuality and the victims themselves would be paid out by the insurance firm – which would fight on Speakman’s behalf to not pay out, but ultimately would be likely to pay substantially more than a measly NZ$1000 per victim, on top of what ACC coughs up.
The difference is the delay.
An alternative would be for ACC to be subject to competition and for motor vehicle ACC to be a matter of personal accounts. The insurers of the victims would pay out, and Speakman would see a significant rise in her levies to reflect the risk she poses.
However, with ACC she will pay the same as any driver who has had no accidents at all. So why is any reasonable debate about this system treated as blasphemy? Isn’t it time that this nearly 40 year old experiment was subject to a fundamental review?
She has lost her driving licence for six months and has been ordered to pay a paltry NZ$1000 reparations to each of the victims.
A friend of the victims calls the reparations “pathetic”. So they are, but then so they should be if one accepts the so-called “social contract” of ACC.
Speakman’s car insurance is paying out the property damage costs in replacing the bikes, which of course is fine. However, ACC creates a completely new dimension. This is one that many New Zealanders, exposed to TV legal dramas from overseas, are probably not fully aware of.
The right to sue for damages as a result of the negligence of another is gone, except in the context of exemplary damages.
In theory, as Speakman paid ACC levies both associated with her motor vehicle licence and in fuel tax, she has paid into socialised insurance scheme, much loved by the left, designed to provide compensation to the victims.
Its fundamental basis is no fault based compensation. ACC is meant to cover the needs of the victims. She should basically have walked away with simply losing her driving licence and paying court costs, if you really believe ACC is fair and reasonable. The advantages of ACC are clear, in that it offers compensation fairly quickly and without the hassle of court, but the disadvantages are also clear. It offers no deterrent to bad behaviour, no incentives to good behaviour, and the compensation is never particularly great.
If you don’t think ACC is fair and reasonable (and let’s be honest here, no other country has ACC), then you’d return the right to sue. That would mean Speakman would face significant claims for loss of income, emotional trauma, pain and suffering because of her negligence. A fair deterrent to making a foolish mistake. More likely, Speakman would have insurance to cover such an eventuality and the victims themselves would be paid out by the insurance firm – which would fight on Speakman’s behalf to not pay out, but ultimately would be likely to pay substantially more than a measly NZ$1000 per victim, on top of what ACC coughs up.
The difference is the delay.
An alternative would be for ACC to be subject to competition and for motor vehicle ACC to be a matter of personal accounts. The insurers of the victims would pay out, and Speakman would see a significant rise in her levies to reflect the risk she poses.
However, with ACC she will pay the same as any driver who has had no accidents at all. So why is any reasonable debate about this system treated as blasphemy? Isn’t it time that this nearly 40 year old experiment was subject to a fundamental review?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)