A smarter move by Labour
Labour’s campaign website called Healthy Homes Healthy Kiwis is a sign they are starting to learn Opposition. It is a sensible and good move for them, as compared to reminding everyone of how badly they stuffed up ACC.
This campaign is asking the Government do something positive – a nationwide insulation project.
While it is asking for money to be spent – it is one off money, which for me is far preferable to something that permamently increases annual spending (such as increasing superannuation floor from 65% to 66% of average wage). And there are some strong arguments that insulation pays for itself with lower power bills, lower health costs etc.
There is still a very legitimate debate about whether the Government or householders should pay for the cost. But it is well timed as a possible infrastructure project during the recession. And the Government is already doing it on a lesser scale with state houses.
Labour of course do not mention on the site that while they agreed to do it in 2008 with the Greens, they never set aside funding for it.
But overall it is a pretty good choice of issue for their first campaign.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
You forgot to mention that the site is funded by the taxpayer, breaks almost every rule of such funding and….
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/?q=content/labour-keeps-stealing-our-money
Is also a complete joke when you scratch the surface of the bleating
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/helplessness-by-labour/
March 18th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
And where do we get all this insulation? If we ramp up production of insulation, what happens when the demand disappears? We end up with surplus capacity with no use. Are we going to export?
Note Australia has this same policy, driven by the Union in the insulation industry in all likelihood. So are we going to go head to head with Australia in the supply of pink batts to the world?
March 18th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Can someone please explain to me why my neighbour has to pay for my house to be insulated?
This sort of thing really pisses me off. We live in a house that is not well insulated and insulation is in out mid term plans but I would not expect anyone but me to pay for it.
A little test for those who think the “gummint” should pay, would you have the nerve to knock on your neighbours door and ask them to contribute to insulating your house. If the answer is no then why do you expect the government to do it for you.
Home ownership (and the maintainance that goes with it) is a privelidge not a right!
March 18th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
My home is completely insulated but I do have a log burner that pumps some nasties into the air. So since I don’t need the Govt to pay to insulate my home I’d like them to buy me a heat pump.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Insulation of homes should be left to property owners to determine the cost benefits.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Well said, chfr.
Entrenched “Nanny state will do it” attitudes by politicians and their constituencies that go for that stuff, are just going from bad to worse to ridiculous to economy-destroying.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
What you mean do something like this?
http://www.energywise.govt.nz/funding-available/home-funding/index.html
You know, that grant that already exists and is even being advertised (albeit poorly) on TV?
March 18th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
iiq374 – I don’t qualify.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Hell, you right whingers are such a pain. My house has polished floorboards and no underfloor insulation. The rest of you tax-payers should fund my house to be insulated so I don’t have to fork out for a pair of slippers for the winter.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
No, driven by a desire to reduce GHG emissions. 26 per cent of emissions are from residential/commercial premises, insulation is a great way to reduce demand for electricity thereby reducing emissions. Forecast increases in energy use are scary and will cost far more, in the generation and emissions, than the cost of targeted funding for insulation.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Seriously though – No tax money should be used to pay for insulation on private property. I got two bales (and I mean wool bales) of second hand batts off Trademe for $10 last year and did the walls and ceiling of my man-cave with them. If it is cold, wear a cardigan or if you are from Wainui (like the couple in the Labour Whinge Site), a Warehouse hoodie.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
cocamc007 – because you think Labour was talking about giving to people earning over $100,000 (1/2 earners) / $140,000 (3 earners). Wow – that really is taking Socialism to the next level even for them…
March 18th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
iiq374 – I don’t want any government to fund insulation for my house or anyone else who owns one. I am ok with State houses to be upgraded and perhaps even council houses .
I’d much rather see the $1 billion go into something that provides a longer term economic return for the money invested.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I knew there was something not right about that couple from somewhere in Wellington. Wellington itself should be aborted from the rest of New Zealand.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I’ll stick my hand up for free insulation! I’ve got hardly any. None under the floor and none in the roof. It’s a flat pitched roof so there is no ceiling cavity as such… but by simply taking off all the iron you can put insullation in there no worries! Also the iron needs to be replaced at some stage but I reakon the government could replace it with some sort of iron that has insullation sprayed on somehow. Also I have lots of glass in the house so double glazing would be good too. Where do I sign up?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I love the branding.
(tiny little Parliamentary crest) (ENORMOUS LABOUR PARTY LOGO)
March 18th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
It’s a very good website, and a very good “tug at the heartstrings” campaign. Whether it’s good policy is another matter. In my opinion, there’s a more pressing issue in leaky homes.
Labour’s campaign must be seen in the context of the former Labour Government’s almost total lack of interest in trying to fix the leaky homes issue, fobbing off local government, whose budgets are groaning under the onslaught of the joint and several liability they face on repairing leaky homes. How can they argue for insulation for homes, yet against plugging leaks and improving watertightness?
Labour had six years to do something about fixing peoples homes after the emergence of the Don Hunn Report into Weathertightness in 2002. They did nothing, except create a Weathertightness Resolution service that sees lawyers and consultants win, while homeowners and ratepayers jointly suffer.
I sincerely hope the National led government revisit this issue and provide leaky home owners and councils alike with a better system for resolving leaky homes.
Cr Aaron Bhatnagar
Auckland City Councillor
March 18th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
My apartment is already insulated, but still cold in the winter. I wouldn’t mind taxpayers paying for double glazing. Or paying for my electricity so that I can run more and bigger heaters. Or, come to think of it, flying me to Fiji or Cairns for the winter. Labour could set up a web site: Hotter Holidays Happier Kiwis.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Smart maybe, but I think they’ve left their run a little late.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
“No, driven by a desire to reduce GHG emissions. 26 per cent of emissions are from residential/commercial premises, insulation is a great way to reduce demand for electricity thereby reducing emissions. Forecast increases in energy use are scary and will cost far more, in the generation and emissions, than the cost of targeted funding for insulation.”
It was a parody of the persistent Left wing meme that centre-right governments are in the back pockets of big business. We know that if National had proposed such a thing, then The Standard would be desperately searching campaign donation records in the hopes of finding an executive who presonally donated $10k to National back in the 1990’s.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Would that be like the Ozzie one that tells you take leave or be boring? Hadn’t heard they offered to pay for travel, but, hang on, yes they did, they sent a grand out to everyone didn’t they!
March 18th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
When Labour agreed to do it in 2008 with the Greens, they also didn’t mention that Jeanette Fitzsimons is a major shareholder in a home insulation business.
Meanwhile they prattled on and on about National having conflicts of interest and only ever looking after their mates.
Labour and the Greens are a bad bunch of complete idiots!
March 18th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
@Kimble and Aaron Bhatnagar, might I remind you that it was Nick Smith who deregulated the building industry allowing the use of untreated timber… leading too, well you know what.
I’m happy to revisit that decision if you’d like to discuss why and at whose behest Smith blundered so… it’s all well documented by Hunn.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I agree with it to be honest. It should be done. Even if it costs an arm and a leg, the savings in the long run would be massive.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“Can someone please explain to me why my neighbour has to pay for my house to be insulated?”
The theory is that it’s an investment: money spent on insulation now will be money saved later on health-care (because people in cold houses are more likely to get sick). Also it should reduce electricity demand over winter (although how much, I don’t know) and, consequently, may reduce our Kyoto obligation (which the taxpayer will be paying for anyway).
“Insulation of homes should be left to property owners to determine the cost benefits.”
If you’re a landlord, what are the benefits? You’ve got tenants who pay rent; what do you care if they’re cold and unhealthy? You could insulate and put the rent up to cover your costs, but your tenants might not be able to afford the increase. This is particularly the case with retirees on fixed incomes, who are also probably the most vulnerable group to health problems.
As long as we’ve got a publically funded health service, seeking to reduce demand seems like a very good idea.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Sorry Repton but that is more feel good rubbish. I have had enough of that in the last 9 years to last me a lifetime.
The point you miss in my rant was that I am sick of government for and by the lowest common denomenator.
Firstly I am a believer in making the most of your life…yourself. I am sick of having to look after the “most vulnerable” in our society and having it put on me that I am somehow responsible for their plight, I am not. The only people I am responsible for are my family and I am busy trying to take care of them.
We don’t know how much power insulation will save but I sure as heck know this will be offset by the wind farms that need a subsidy to survive. This and Kyoto make my blood boil, yes the climate changes but Kyoto and wind farms won’t stop this. I keep asking myself who is making money out of this and why would anyone want us to revert to the pre-industrial age.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
So I agree with DPF that this is a smart website and a smart campaign by Labour. Thanks to DPF for calling a spade a spade even when it doesn’t help his team out. Although I acknowledge there is room for debate around the policy itself, I think it is also smart policy, not just strategically for Labour in terms of reaching out to its base, but also as a public policy move for New Zealand as a whole.
Here I respond to some of the criticisms of the website and policy leveled in the comments:
1. Whaleoil: the website itself “breaks almost every rule of [taxpayer] funding”
This is crap. Here is a brief fisking. On his site, Whale says there are four problems. First, he says the site has only a dubious parliamentary purpose. Wrong. Petitioning parliament, which the website gathers support for, is integral to our parliamentary process. Second, Whale says it breaks the rules about soliciting money because it links to another web page that solicits money. Wrong. The Labour page that this site links to does not solicit money, and in fact the entire labour.org.nz website (as far as I can see) does not solicit money or membership. Third, Whale says the website “may be misleading” because he doesn’t like the arguments and stats it cites. Apparently everything needs proper citation in order to avoid being “misleading.” This coming from Whaleoil! By this standard, all political websites are misleading. Silly argument. Last, he says the healthy homes website breaks the law because it fails to provide contact details. Of course it does link to a web site with contact details for Labour. If Whale is happy to count linking as part of the same web enterprise in the second point above, he should be happy to do it here as well. So he is wrong on that count, too. That leaves Whale’s crusade hinging solely on the issue of the relative sizes of the crest and party logo in the footer. Better save some space on page one and call out the army on that one!
2. “Why should I pay for my neighbour to have his house insulated?” (various)
Good question. Easy answer. If you pay for your neighbour’s house to be insulated, the people in that house get healthier (Howden-Chapman et al 2007). That means (a) they are better able to help you fund state services by working, being productive, and paying tax, thus decreasing the burden on you; and (b) they use fewer healthcare resources, which are paid for with your tax dollars. So investing this money in your neighbour’s welfare today saves you money over the long term. That is why it is a good investment for you.
3. “Why shouldn’t the market just reward homeowners and landlords who insulate their homes with higher sales and rental prices? Why doesn’t the market clear this all up?” (various)
Because buyers and renters (particularly renters) cannot see or experience insulation in their walk-throughs of properties before they decide whether or not to invest. To be sure, a careful **buyer** might find this out on a particularly invasive building inspection, but there is no way a renter would know. So the market failure here is in the form of asymmetric information – the owner knows about insulation, but the renter / buyer does not. For a good exploration of these kinds of markets, see George Akerloff’s famous paper on the market for lemons (it is about used cars).
Moreover, the market incentives in this situation are perverse, especially in rental situations. In these situations, the landlord faces costs to insulating that he/she can’t reasonably hope to recoup through increased revenue, therefore receiving no benefit. Instead, all the health benefits accrue to the tenant, but the tenant can’t realistically shop around for these benefits because he/she can’t see them at purchase time. And, as I understand it, a big part of the insulation problem in New Zealand is with renter-occupied dwellings.
Those are two reasons why the market doesn’t clear in this case.
4. “Isn’t there already a program for this?”
Yes, but it is very restricted in terms of entry and limited in terms of scope and that is why nobody is using it.
5. “Isn’t leaky homes a bigger problem?” (Aaron B)
Maybe. But nothing says you can’t attack both problems at once. Indeed, fixing leaky homes does more good if you fix the insulation problem while you are at it.
6. Haven’t Labour left their run on this too late?” (Murray)
If you mean to say “didn’t Labour already lose” then you are of course right and thanks so much for the novel insight. If you mean “isn’t Labour too late to make an impression with this before the next election” then you are overconfident and wrong.
I notice that Repton just said some of this stuff. I agree with Repton, and good effort to him/her. chfr’s reply makes the amusing mistake of accusing someone of ranting and then… ranting! Hooray for him/her?!
Finally, a disclaimer: I had nothing at all to do with this creating this website.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“That means (a) they are better able to help you fund state services by working, being productive, and paying tax, thus decreasing the burden on you; and (b) they use fewer healthcare resources, which are paid for with your tax dollars. So investing this money in your neighbour’s welfare today saves you money over the long term. That is why it is a good investment for you.”
That argument can also be used to create:
1. private consumption laws; no smoking, fatty foods, alcohol
2. oppressive parenting laws; no smacking, only official forms of discipline allowed, must educate your child in a manner approved by the state
3. health and safety laws; no more contact sports, max 35kph speed limits everywhere
Basically, because government takes tax off you to pay for things, anything that could possibly reduce the potential cost to you could be done under the guise of saving you money.
Its bullshit of course.
And the very idea that Labour wants to “save you money” is laughable.
As for the argument that “there is nothing to say that you cant attack leaky homes AND insulation problems”… well, leaky homes are undeniably more deserving of attention, but Labour doesnt want that debacle to be mentioned at all. They have created an issue to detract from a similar issue that they never addressed while they had the power to do so.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Repton>The theory is that it’s an investment: money spent on insulation now will be money saved later on health-care (because people in cold houses are more likely to get sick).
So Green policies that promote the replacement of cheap coal sourced electricity with expensive windmill sourced electricity will lead to cold houses and sick people?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
@chfr: “Firstly I am a believer in making the most of your life…yourself. I am sick of having to look after the “most vulnerable” in our society”
Do you think we should scrap (or privatise, rather) the public health system? Because if not, you should have reasons to support this idea. (or, at the very least, if you oppose it you need to say why you think the cost will outweigh any health benefits)
I hear and read often that the key to economic improvement is to identify and remove inefficiencies. This is a clear-cut inefficiency: many people in winter spend more than they need to on electricity or gas to (in effect) slightly heat the air outside their home. What a waste! It’s effectively a tax on poor people (if they weren’t poor, they could buy a house and insulate it themselves) — except it’s worse than a tax, because the money is just wasted literally on thin air.
Perhaps, as an alternative, we could pass a law requiring all landlords to state the energy effiency of properties they’re letting in any advertisements. Maybe then the market would start to sort the issue out. Would you support that? Or do you have any other ideas for more efficiently using our power?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Kimble
Yes the “invest now – save later” argument is used to justify all kinds of government programs, from enforcing minimum standards for schools or compulsory seatbelts to rehabilitation programs in prisons and subsiding prescriptions. I proudly support all those programs, as do both the Labour party and the National party.
One important difference between an insulation program and many others you list is that, from the point of view of the taxpayer, it is **only** about saving them money over the long term, and doesn’t cut down on their set of consumption choices in the process (unless you count the freedom to live in cold, damp, unhealthy conditions as a freedom worth fighting for). That makes it different from smoking bans, fatty food bans, contact sport bans, etc.
And the rest of your comment was simpleton sloganeering that avoided the substantive issues, so I’ll ignore it.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
“@Kimble and Aaron Bhatnagar, might I remind you that it was Nick Smith who deregulated the building industry allowing the use of untreated timber… leading too, well you know what.”
So what? You think we wont apportion blame to someone who shares some of our ideology? Perhaps Nick Smith would have done a good job cleaning up his own mess if he wasnt in opposition at the time.
Your defense that the problem was caused by someone else is worthless given that the criticism is that Labour were negligent in the “clean up” of the situation.
They ignored the problem rather than addressing it.
Labour had the power to fix things. They didnt. They fucked up.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
@davidp: “So Green policies that promote the replacement of cheap coal sourced electricity with expensive windmill sourced electricity will lead to cold houses and sick people?”
Huh? The Green anti-coal policies are clearly to do with climate change. If you don’t think climate change is happening (or if you don’t think it’s a bad thing, or you don’t think there’s anything humans can do about it) then clearly you would think coal power is great.
The Green party disagree: they think that by acting now we can reduce the problems caused by climate change, and that if we don’t act now, we will face very serious problems in the future.
These are separate issues. Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn’t seek to help people save power out of spite because Green supporters oppose coal power?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
@Kimble: “You think we wont apportion blame to someone who shares some of our ideology?”
We might get a lot more done if we worried less about apportioning blame and more about things we can do now that will improve the situation..
(this comment directed at one-eyed supporters from all corners of the political spectrum)
March 18th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I think we are overlooking some terrific talent in government. Michael Cullen should be in charge of purchasing an insulation company. I am sure he will buy a good quality company like Kiwi Rail. He could name it Kiwi Energy Saver. I get a kick out of the picture of Goff telling a qualified builder how insualtion works. To quote Helen Clark, Goff is truly “laughable”.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Labour are not very specific about whether they are talking about installing ceiling insulation, under-floor insulation, or wall insulation. Or any 2 of the above. or all 3 of the above. It would make a big difference to the cost.
Ceiling insulation: Retail price about $14.9 per square metre. Very easy to install – you just drag it up into the ceiling space. Most houses have a ceiling space although some have skillion roofs (sloping ceilings) which would require some demolition to gain access, probably making cost prohibitive.
Under floor insulation – Retail not sure though have seen $30 per square metre (installed) mentioned for Ex-pol. Not applicable to houses with concrete floors, and concrete floors are probably more prevalent than skillion roofs.
Wall insulation: There are spray-in systems e.g. Airfoam available in NZ. Uncertain of price although it must be cheaper than removing gib linings and installing batts. However your house ends up covered in little filled-in holes which need to be painted.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Labour are also not very clear on their website as to whether the “spending $1 billion over 15 years” means spending $1 billion on insulation (and installation thereof) or $1 billion on information campaigns and administration thereof, leaving the homeowners themselves to buy and install the insulation.
(If the choice was between one or the other of those two, I would far rather see the insulation installed and paid for, for my $1 Billion, than simply recommended and extolled!)
There is also a philosophical question here: Is this a scheme to “help out our poorest and most vulnerable” by making their housing cheaper to heat? Or is it a scheme to reduce demand on the national electricity grid, thereby delaying the costs to the economy of expanding generation/transmission infrastructure?
It is very hard to argue against “No, you should pay if you want to have insulation in your own home.”
However if the reduction in energy consumption from the insulation programme can be estimated, then you can estimate the deferral of electricity generation/supply infrastructure expansion (paid for by your power bills as well as mine) and find a net present worth to those deferrals. Which you can compare to the net present worth of the insulation campaign and decide whether it’s worth doing from an national economy point of view.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Sorry but I’m with Halfdone on this – it is rubbish. If people really valued insulation so much they would buy it. Perhaps if their power wasn’t so expensive they would be able to afford it
March 18th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Has the building code already been modified to include double glazing, and insulating all walls, ceilings and floor to set specifications? If not why not?
Plus The Optimist is correct, if power prices and other fuel taxes were not so aggressive people would have more capital to invest into energy efficiency improvements. However human nature is human nature, if power were dirt cheap we would just turn up the heat pumps all year round. Why would we spend our money on insulation, the Labour party wants to spent it for us telling us we should have it.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
@Kimble
No that’s not what I mean, I meant it in response to your comment about the Standard and some statement about being in the pocket of business. I’m sure Smith wasn’t, but he did do what business wanted and it was a bloody disaster!
No, that’s not what they did Kimble, go back and read the Hunn report and then look again at the reform that followed.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:17 am
No one is listening to what Labour has to say. They were turfed out on 8 November 2008 and “on the outer” is where they’ll stay.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:25 am
No really, is that true… bloody hell, I had no idea they’d lost… thanks for the heads-up.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Your welcome Paul.
Another heads up. Helen Clark didn’t even last to lunchtime. She resigned her “leadership” positions that night. Serenaded by a collection of the sisterhood standing staunch behind her. A bit late for symbolism by then mind.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:22 am
I have no problem with the Govt insulating its State Houses – it owns them and should bring them up to contemporary standards.
I have installed insulation in every house I have bought or built. The benefits in comfort justify it but it also increases resale value.
I am appalled by the idea that people who have not insulated their houses should now have their insulation paid for by me! It means I am insulating houses twice.
The idea that it saves electricity is a tenuous. People enjoy greater comfort and put on fewer woolly jumpers.
Here is the correct policy. Government insulates its own properties just as I insulated mine.
Then councils put a note on the Lim Report advising if the property is NOT insulated (which will bring down the price) or if they are not sure use the LIM to advise people to check the state of the insulation.
If sellers knew that their properties would be discounted – or cause a loss of sale – many would put in the insulation in to promote their comfort while they own, and to enhace their sale value when they sell.
Same with rental properties.
Require anyone letting a house to advise potential tenants of the state of insulation.
Then just let the buyer beware. Information not regulation.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:08 am
cocamc007 – I didn’t say anything about whether I agreed with the scheme – I was just pointing out it already existed;
You then replied you don’t qualify and I pointed out it was unlikely that Labour was actually going to extend the scheme to more people – so your final point is?
Rob Salmond – “4. “Isn’t there already a program for this?””[sic]:
Very limited in terms of entry? What? Because it is mainly households earning more than $140K that are uninsulated.
Or did you mean that it doesn’t have high uptake because it was only released in January and started advertising last month??
(As opposed to the old EECA grants which actually did have limited conditions)
March 19th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Have to agree completely with Owen on this one – very similar to student loans etc Labour is continuing to try and create disincentives for people to actually take responsibility for anything in their own lives; but instead making it better to wait until ‘nanny’ pays for it.