Insulation programme to reach 230,000 homes

It is great to see the announcement yesterday that the home insulation programme that the Green Party initiated will now reach over 230,000 homes.

We’re in Parliament because we want to look after New Zealand and all of its people and this scheme is an example of how we can work with parties across the political spectrum to achieve that.

This scheme that is good for the environment, good for people’s health and good for the economy, and will be working hard to encourage the National Party to provide more support for this vital programme.

We want all New Zealanders to live in dry, healthy homes powered by affordable green energy, and would love to see this programme extended to another 200,000 homes over the next three years.

Our Green Jobs plan outlined out initiatives to transform the economy and create 100,000 new green jobs – a key part of this is to invest $350 million into the home insulation programme this would create 10,000 jobs and insulate at least another 200,000 homes.

It is great that we have been able to work with the Labour and National Governments’ to have 150,000 homes insulated so far with another 80,000 scheduled to be insulated.

This is a good start but we are keen to keep on developing this programme so that everyone in New Zealand has the chance to live in warm healthy homes.

12 thoughts on “Insulation programme to reach 230,000 homes

  1. I understand that the majority of the homes insulated under the scheme belong to those on medium incomes and that most who could really benefit are still struggling in substandard housing. It is house owners that can really take advantage of the support and as the majority of low income families live in rented homes, it is landlords that need to be targeted next. How can this be done?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. The problem is that scheme is not an insulation scheme. It’s an insulation INSTALLATION scheme. You must get the insulation installed by an approved installer. Once the subsidy is paid it’s really only that INSTALLER who’s been subsidised. The installer is incentivised to churn out maximum throughput and not necessarily maximun quality.
    Further the insulation products themselves are produced to generate maximum PROFIT rather that maximum performance. Glass wool and polystyrene spring to mind as VERY cheap to produce and VERY profitable to sell. Think penguin’s feet.

    My scheme would go like this…
    1:Get a row of identical state houses and get a university to test them for their thermal performance.
    Then invite all comers for ….INSULATION IDOL.
    Each industry applicant could install their product as they wished (monitored of course to show best practice).
    Once done the houses would be re-evaluated for thermal performance.
    The winner(s) would take all. Their products would be the only ones eligible for retrofit subsidy. The rest could come back later when the next round of IDOL occurs , 5 years maybe??
    2: Anyone could then buy that product and either get it installed by an installer or DIY. Once installed an inspector would come around with an infra-red camera (and other testing devices), if the job has been done right, the rebate would be paid directly to the person who bought the product.
    3: Insulation retrofit would be directly tax deductable, not capitalised/depreciated.
    4: A rating system (that actually worked) would be up and running to star- rate homes on a 5 star scale. Energy star homes. Ratings displayed on the house, title and any rent or sale documentation.

    Anything I’ve missed out?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. sprout, the Green Jobs plan was to require all rentals to have an energy efficiency rating by 2015 and to meet minimum energy standards by 2018.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. SPC – if you are right, what happens if the landlord can’t afford to meet those standards. Does the landlord have to forceably evict the tenants?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. Don’t think the accredited supplier set up working too well.
    In fact, quotes I obtained from accredited suppliers, with the subsidy applied, at the time, were not much less than the quotes from non-accredited suppliers for the same job.
    It seems a large part of the subsidy is going to profit taking by some suppliers.

    At the same time insulation suppliers who were not lucky enough to be accredited, mostly small firms or one man outfits, lost most of their business.

    It would have been better to let anybody do the insulation and have a better inspection regime. A lot of accredited suppliers were found to be cutting corners in addition to price gouging.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. Agree with Kerry here. My experience with this was that putting in underfloor poly from the local recycling place was fine. I was doing the installation. Wasn’t damned easy either. When the scheme came in the supplier lost accreditation and had to stop. Not big enough… it was like 3 people… and it just wasn’t able to match “Expol”, except that it was better insulation.

    Someplace along the line that accreditation scheme went astray.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. samiam – your Insulation Idol idea might work for suppliers of complete insulation packages, but specialists would not be able to compete. To insulate a house well requires ceiling insulation, wall insulation, floor insulation and double glazing on the windows. A company that specialises in retrofitting wall insulation isn’t likely to be able to compete in the other areas.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. This is actually a good initiative. Wellington should be targeted as a priority area because the houses here are appallingly under built for the very shitty conditions.

    However it’s not true that this initiative creates jobs. It simply reallocates resources. Monies not spent here will otherwise be spent elsewhere, with the same basic economic activity effect.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. Metria – well done on the insulation scheme, but your numbers are complete nonsense.

    10,000 jobs will not be created spending $350m on insulating 200,000 houses over 3 years.

    Even if every cent went on installers wages, that’s only $11,667 for each job per year. When you consider well over half the money for each insulation job is spent on the actual insulation product, then they’d get paid way under $5000 each per year.

    Secondly, the team of two that recently installed our insulation do at least two houses every day – sometimes more (our house took 2 hours). That’s around 500 per year, or 250 per person per year.

    200,000 houses for 10,000 workers, is only 20 houses per worker for three years, or just 7 houses per worker each year.

    Our installers are doing over 250 houses each per year. You have your workers doing just 7.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. Funny, Photo. You are happy to use multiplier effects on assessing jobs created by the oil industry, but not by home insulation.

    Typical RWNJ fudged statistics.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. Kerry says “Funny, Photo. You are happy to use multiplier effects on assessing jobs created by the oil industry, but not by home insulation.”

    The majority of multiplier in Taranaki wasn’t oil workers spending in the local clothing shop – it was large numbers of construction jobs, engineering companies, and computer contractors, with direct contracts to the oil industry.

    In contrast you expect us to beleive there are 35 additional jobs created because one low paid insulation installer spends his paypacket?

    That’s laughable.

    Then you go on to talk about fudged statistics.

    Keep up the entertainment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>