Page 966 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 31 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (11.22): Madam Speaker, as someone who has worked in the insulation industry, I can agree with a lot of the points that Mr Connolly - - -
Mr Connolly: Not Mr Fluffy?
MR STEVENSON: No, not Mr Fluffy. One of the major points that Mr Connolly made is that the cost of the house will increase if ceiling insulation is compulsory. The reason why wall insulation should be compulsory and why insulation of cathedral ceilings or other inaccessible areas should be compulsory is that, for all practical purposes, you cannot do anything after the house has been built. Certainly, in a cathedral ceiling, if there is a 4-inch gap you can pump it in, but it is not necessarily an ideal situation. Normal ceiling insulation can be easily put in at a later time.
Mr Moore put down a number of points on a sheet of paper and I would like to mention some of them. He says, first of all, that there will always be better things to spend money on - carpet, et cetera - before insulation, and therefore there is no guarantee that insulation will be installed. That is true, but only in a very small number of cases. What you find is that the people marketing insulation do a very nice job of getting to people in an area where there is not compulsory insulation. We regularly see television and newspaper ads on insulation, and people go out doorknocking to introduce people to the benefit of having insulation. What you find from a practical point of view is that, after a couple of years, the number of homes that have ceiling insulation in non-compulsory areas goes well into the 90 per cent range. The better principle that we could adopt to encourage people to save energy is to suggest that ceiling insulation will do a lot towards reducing their energy costs and, of course, keep the house cooler in the summer. There is also benefit to the home regarding noise.
The second point mentioned is that the argument is one of conservation of energy. The community saves, and the individual saves by recouping that outlay in the first two years. We all save when people use insulation; but let me tell you that in no way, shape or form will it be two years. Not even the industry claims that. It takes a lot longer, particularly for ceiling insulation - in some cases over a decade - to recoup the amount of money initially outlaid for insulation.
The third point was that insulation is cheaper and more effectively installed during building at home loan rates. It is cheaper and more cost-effective. The point is that the cost is spread over a longer period - a 20-year home loan, a 25-year home loan, or so on. That is a valid point. Nevertheless, it does put up the cost of the house. There is one other problem. Usually, in a new home, the home owner gets no choice about what type of insulation they want. This is not the case if it is not compulsory and the home owner looks at the various insulation materials available and makes the choice. I grant that if someone is having a home built they can direct what type of insulation goes in, but this is rarely done. That happens only if they are having their home built and are not buying a spec home. As for insulation being more effectively installed at the time of building, it is only more effectively installed in inaccessible areas like walls. I would agree that it is worth while having compulsory insulation in areas that cannot be insulated effectively later on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .