Insulating the minister

Garrett's scheme is damaging the government's credibility

Garrett's scheme is damaging the government's credibility

BY his own estimation, Peter Garrett has been doing an outstanding job. Four deaths and 86 house fires linked to his home insulation scheme are naturally regrettable, but the Environment Minister claims he can hardly be held responsible if installers ignore the wiring and clearance distances set out in clause 4.5.2.3 and figure 4.7 of the Australian and New Zealand safety standards AS/NZS 3000:2007. That, in a nutshell, is the minister's defence. The real issue however is not, as Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard cutely put it on Friday, whether Mr Garrett should be expected to be in every roof supervising tradies: it is Mr Garrett's ill-fated decision to persist with a rushed, over-ambitious and badly conceived scheme run by bureaucrats poorly equipped for the task. Why did he continue to roll out the scheme when it became clear that the insulation industry was under-regulated, enforced few safeguards and paid scant attention to training? At what point might it have been sensible to change course and pull out, or at least pull back?

For a government that puts inordinate faith in the ability of bureaucrats to deliver its policy objectives, this was a disaster waiting to happen. From GP super clinics to the schools construction program, the Rudd government has set the bureaucracy up to fail by setting ambitious tasks involving multiple layers of government and tight deadlines. Kevin Rudd's least favourite economist Friedrich von Hayek, who warned of the limitations of central planning, would have seen it coming.

The Prime Minister is no doubt nervous about giving a resurgent opposition an early scalp by requiring Mr Garrett to step aside, but he should consider carefully the damage the home insulation scheme is doing to his government's reputation for efficient and effective delivery. Mr Rudd needs to demonstrate that the lessons of this particular debacle have been absorbed if he expects the electorate to endorse his ambitious agenda in areas such as health and education.

It is hard to imagine that former prime minister John Howard would have been allowed such leeway by the commentators had four people died as a consequence of one of his programs, but it has been clear for some time that when it comes to this government, different standards apply.