So, the insulation scheme has been canned permanently, at least while rectification work is carried out on existing installations subsidized by the suspended scheme. The press release puts it this way:
The report by Dr Allan Hawke into the Home Insulation Program (HIP) was a key determinant in the Government’s decision to not proceed with this component of REBS.
Dr Hawke has advised the Government that he has “grave concerns about the wisdom of proceeding with any further government supported home insulation program.”
In his report he notes that “the safety and quality risks cannot be fully abated and both the Government’s efforts and those of reputable industry players will be largely deployed on the Government’s rectification program, which must proceed as soon as possible.”
Dr Hawke further advised in his report that if the Government did take the decision to proceed, significant risk mitigation policies would be required. The implementation of these policies would cause a significant delay to the 1 June start date.
It is because of these concerns about the development of an appropriate risk management framework in regards to safety and compliance issues that the Government has made the decision that REBS will proceed without the insulation component.
Dr Hawke’s report will be tabled in the Parliament today and made available publicly.
I’ll be interested to see how Hawke’s review squares with Possum’s statistical analysis from a few months ago
Regardless, I’m probably most disappointed that the idea of governments subsidizing insulation – probably the single most cost-effective, painless way to reduce greenhouse emissions available to Australia – has been politically tainted for years to come through a politically botched implementation, seized upon by an opportunistic Opposition and an innumerate media.
Elsewhere: From comments, a very good analysis of the Hawke report by Grog’s Gamut, not to mention something that slipped straight under my radar – a backflip on a promise to build 260 child care centres (it turns out they may not be needed).
Hate to nitpick RM but thusly? …. as follows better fits this piece.
[/teacher]
It will be interesting to see if they release the risk advice. But I wouldn’t be surprised if a large component was political risk – the last thing they want would be an insulation related death during the election campaign.
In retrospect it was probably a bad idea to link the insulation scheme to the stimulus package as the goals of the stimulus package far outweighed those of a sustainable insulation industry. Features like 100% subsidisation resulted in the homeowners both caring less about quality as well as having less leverage with the installers as they weren’t paying for it in the end anyway. If for example people only qualified for the scheme on buying a house (or say a rental house qualified when tenants changed) it would have allowed for the existing industry to ramp up supply in a more orderly fashion and yet still resulted in a lot of insulation being installed in a pretty short time. It also would have avoided the cliff ending for insulation companies which was going to happen anyway if the scheme had not been suspended.
On the upside – there’s going to be a lot of really cheap insulation on ebay very soon. Time to pick some up for the shed.
OK, Fran, I’ll can the pseudo-smartarse slang from now on
Danger, Will Robinson! Language Nerd Approaching! Warning! Warning!
“thusly” is just fine, FB. Actually plain old “thus” is slightly better, but people aren’t used to it (thus is often used interchangeably with words like therefore) so adding on the “ly” is a bit clearer, and also sort of fun.
“as follows” is OK too but it’s not overtly preferable and is a tad flavorless. Compare Bottom as Pyramus:
“Thus die I! Thus! Thus! Thus!”
with the hypothetical:
“I die as follows…”
Actually that’s sort of funny in a Spock/HAL 9000 kind of way, but still…
What was I talking about again?
Oh, who cares.
So the meaning escapes.
For a few weeks, we seemed to have a constant stream of young immigrant men knocking on our door, telling us about the rebate, and hoping to get us to sign up with their firm to get our house insulated. Those families, working hard to get up and running in a new country, must be feeling shattered now. I imagine that quite a few small business people have been badly damaged by the withdrawal of the scheme.
Chris said:
This is the key point. Keynesian pump priming works no matter how you apply the funds. So on superficial examination it seems like compelling economic and political logic to apply it to something useful that is a priority — in this case everyone’s favourite — energy efficiency.
The trouble is that if you do that then politically, instead of asking “did it work as pump priming?”, people start asking “was it money best spent?” Worse still, all OH&S gets laid at the funding government’s feet. Had I been doing it I’d have focused on energy and cost efficiency and we’d have a tailored program designed to best meet that household’s needs. The program would have been much more expensive per installation but the bulk of the funds would be HECS-style loans. It would not have made a short term difference to money supply because I doubt we’d have completed 20,000 residences and businesses.
As an energy efficiency program, it’s probably a comparative failure. I’d like to see the cost per tonne of CO2 abatement — someone quoted me $200 which is much more expensive than even PV. It would have made more sense to put more PV on people’s rooves. But as we said, this was pump priming.
On the other hand, it’s probably true that the vast majority of people who got the installations are better off either because they will waste less power or get more comfort at a discount. And it did underpin business activity.
By all means Robert, post as you please.
Linguist Pam Peters notes: It originated in the U.S., and it is still more common in American than British English; it is “often used for amusement or to make an ironic point.”
I just hate the word and though it is clearly in usage I cringe when I hear it uttered. When it’s some tosser I move on, but as I respect the quality of your contributions here and don’t find you the least bit pretentious or defensive about your social standing, I had to say something.
[/rant that could not await a "condemn" thread]
I agree with you Robert, its a shame this program has been tainted. However, giving out insulation free doesn’t make sense, people should be willing to put insulation in their roofs because it will save them money long term. Government should give incentives but not 100% subsidisation. Ditto for solar hot water.
Yeah, hear hear, Robert. Your last paragraph sums up the lamentable nature of this whole saga as far as the original intentions of the program were concerned. It would not be an overstatement to suggest that these sorts of programs will be no longer.
@ 8
Chumpai, why doesn’t it make sense? The concept of a subsidy is sound. The government provides free H1N1 vaccines: is this nonsense? People may not be “willing” to trot off and get a vaccine if it weren’t free, but it has a benefit to society does it not?
I suppose the only difference between the insulation and the vaccine, is that the geezer administering the vaccine, more likely than not, is qualified to do so.
So the little cowboy capitaliusts wrecked it for everybody.
But … why didn’t the Government see this coming?
When will the press stop hanging the blame on the goverment and start chasing workcover and the police to get them charging company owners who haqve obviously failed to act in a leagal manner , one roof tiler falls of a roof and theres a hue and cry about it (not at the goverment) but at the owner of the company for failing to train and supervise properly (the boss goes to jail for manslaughter), yet these clowns sit back with thier ill-gotten gains and laugh at us all. Don’t write to your local member complaining about the scheme, COMPLAIN ABOUT THE REGLATORY BODIES FAILING TO HOLD UP THE LAW AND PROSOCUTE THESE COWBOYS. And lets not forget that we have a responsability to, we hire the company that dose the work we should be checking them out before we hire them not bitching after they do a poor job.
Fran @ 6 – very true – if you look at it from the point of a stimulus program then it worked – it got money out fast. And looking through that lens it makes sense that they weren’t going to be too concerned about shonky people coming into the industry or fraud – the primary goal was to get spend money fast. Improved energy efficiency was a useful side-effect of the process.
The Green Loans program, also cancelled, was similar to what you describe. But I think the HECS approach you suggest is the right way to go. For starters it makes it much less attractive to higher income earners without actually having to choose an arbitrary cut-off threshold.
Direct subsidies can be quite distorting – for example I know of people installing large (eg ~10kW) amounts of solar PV because with the government capital subsidies and gross feed in tariffs you can pretty good returns and the FiT money is tax free so worth a lot more to those on high incomes.
“subsidizing insulation – probably the single most cost-effective, painless way to reduce greenhouse emissions available…”
Not to mention the benefits in assisting low-income households dealing with sky-rocketing energy bills, if properly targeted. In NSW, average electricity bills rose 20% last year and are set to rise and extra 9% this year (if you are lucky enough to live in a metropolitan area. More for regional households).
But this wasn’t targeted. It was for everyone, and it was completely free. From conversations with senior officials involved in the role out, it was the ‘totally free’ bit that killed the roll out. It created weird distortions in take up and accountability, and forced the big rush.
*roll-out*
It’s a shame also that the government saw fit to forecast when the scandal broke that the scheme would soon resume in a different form. Perhaps it should have been more circumspect at the time, and said it was going to wait for Hawke’s report before making a decision.
As it has panned out, the government is now looking like it not only botched the scheme but threw in a backflip in for good measure.
This is a good decision. The Goverhment was on a hiding to nothing with this issue, especially given the ‘venerable’ Abbot’s emotive spin on the debate. Cowboy capitalists will always be around to exploit public programs, regardless of the colour of the Government but this episode wont insulate the Abbot from defeat at the next election
As I posted elsewhere:
Did the scheme create jobs (local) durin’ the GFC?
Were most house installations successful?
When faults were picked up has the government just run away?
Or has it taken responsibilty for shonky business practices & has demonstrated a willingness to fix them, including ensuring safety switches are put on some houses?
Have safety standards been improved since the beginning of this scheme?
Did all 4 people die from government mismanagement or other reasons?
Did all four die from electrocution?
Did the media scrutinise the scheme & ride the government harder on this scheme than they did the Howard rebates? And run up to the Iraq invasion?
Furthermore:
And how many women who knew it was unsafe to have another child tried due to the “baby bonus” incentive/enticement & had a miscarriage? Who’s to blame? Wonder how many babies were lost?
Was that Howard’s fault? Costello’s? The minister at the time? I think not. It’s a nonsense. But how much was the scheme thought out?
Plenty of questions to answer. But let’s be distracted by hyped headlines and big scary billboards instead.
A thread on the stimulus, the alternatives that could’ve been if H&C had won the 07 election & some valid comments here:
http://www.blogocrats.com/index.php/top-menu-sections/topics-australian-politics/682-what-would-they-have-donehowardcostello-and-the-gfc
N’
Nasking
Excellent points. Hindsight is a wondeful thing – takes you away from the urgency of the moment last year when everyone was s… scared the economy was going to fall apart and they might lose their incomes. How significant would the job losses in the insulation industry look against those resulting from the recession we might have had and one which the Americans are still experiencing the effects of?
rob @ 9
No need to be so despondent. Similar schemes could run in the future. But next time, careful planning, sorting out supplies and predicting demand, arranging training, checking OHS; if these were attended to carefully, no reason to avoid such schemes.
It was the rush as much as anything – oh, and the lack of relevant competence, failure to heed advice from knowledgeable persons, etc.
Ambiguous – the deeper problem seems to be the traumatic nature of the crisis scenarios produced by the capatilist boom and bust syndrome and the way that generates a sense of urgency which mitigates against reasoned forms of rational planning. To quote someone from the blog mentioned by Nasking:
“I recall clearly the panic that shook Australia & many other countries in those first couple of years of the GFC (Global Financial Crisis). But it has become apparent to me that many voters, media analysts, and those on the opposite side of parliament from Kevin Rudd have significant memory loss.
In 2008 such comments as the following were widely cited:
“Market conditions are the worst anyone in this industry can ever remember. I don’t think anyone has a recollection of a total disappearance in liquidity…There are billion of dollars worth of assets out there for which there is just no market.” Alain Grisay, chief executive officer of London-based F&C Asset Management Plc; Bloomberg News
Well, I got my insulation and I’m damn pleased with it. Hardly used the aircon at all last summer, and I’m looking forward to seeing what happens in winter. Thanks Kevvy!
I am alarmed at the lack of public and media interest as to why it has been unable to continue due to safety concerns. Why is there no detail from anyone giving clear indication as to what these concerns are. Foil was banned so individuals electrocuting themselves would not be expected to continue which would have been the case if contractors had complied with the ban on metal fastners in the first place.
Why were installers not forced to fit downlight covers after the Terms and conditions changed in Nov 09. Queensland electrical safety office advised leave a 200mm gap around lights. Surely this defeats the purpose of installing insulation at all and certainly will not reduce emmissions or increase comfort levels by any amount.
GrogsGamut has a superb piece on the Hawke Report at
http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/2010/04/insulate-damage-and-hope-storm-blows.html
Well said, nasking, but as far as the media is concerned it’s an accepted fact that it was a ‘botched’ scheme, and no amount of perspective will change this media induced reality.
I’m waiting with anticipation for the News Ltd CEO to resign following the Melbourne Storm Salary Cap Storm, using the same principle that they used try to hound Garrett from office. Guilty until proven innocent unless you’re News Ltd.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I wonder if Rudd will invite the people who he met by wandering out in front of parliament for a persoanl explanation of why he has gone back on his promises.
SNAFU
And grogsgamut has a link to the actual Allan Hawke report. Excuse me if someone has already linked above.
I could not find it.
report.http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/publications/energy-efficiency/Home-Insulation-Hawke-Report.ashx
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/publications/energy-efficiency/Home-Insulation-Hawke-Report.ashx
Try that again.
This one got under Kevvy’s guard.
In typical fashion, like the ETS, like Hospital Funding, in Batts he gave us a pseudo-solution to a serious issue rather than a real solution and dressed it up as a masterpiece of daring innovation.
That shameless Abbott though: beats up the fire cluster, demands a billion dollar clean, up then claims the ALP is wasting money. Like Howard, Abbott considers the finances of the Commonwealth to be Liberal Party election campaign funds.
Nasking @18
Significant amounts of Baby Bonus money is spent on beer, pot, smokes and other drugs. Disputes over which partner/de facto should receive which portion of the money cause Domestic Violence. Ergo Costello and Howard are drug peddlers, cancer fanatics and encourage the bashing of de factos.
Shameless indeed, Barholka. The fools are talking about the need to have every house checked. What a complete waste of money that would be.
Nasking and adrian, note I said “politically botched”. In practical terms, the scheme appears by any sensible measure to have been successful, but e government weren’t capable of selling that story.
I don’t completely agree Robert.
While Possum’s analysis raises important questions about the impact of the scheme on fires, there were other aspects of the scheme’s design that were flawed from a policy perspective.
Chumpai is correct above. The benefits from installing insulation are mostly a private benefit (lower energy costs) with an additional social benefit from reducing the pollution externality. That justifies partial subsidisation not full or close to full subsidisation. In turn, such a large subsidy resulted in a large discrete change in the price faced by potential consumers, shifting the demand curve much more rapidly than shifts in the supply curve could absorb. Some problems were inevitable in such an environment, even if they have been overstated.
Worse still, all OH&S gets laid at the funding government’s feet.
From the Report itself, page 36, a little-known fact not mentioned anywhere in the media:
OK. Let’s be fair and quote a totally unbiased source. Let’s go with the left wing media.
According to the 7.30 report this scheme cost 4 lives. Was responsible for 120 house fires. Was responible for electrifying 55,000 roofs. And there are at least 120,000 botched jobs.
Razor, judging by this report from a known left wing source Rudd has to be more worried about the GG meeting him outside parliament house and saying “right sunshine. Give us the keys.”
7.30 report is left wing media?
Yep. And they slammed Rudd.
So guys, quick question…if the GG sacks Rudd does that mean Gillard takes charge or does that mean we head straight to the polls?
Given that we are are always being told “you know what?” the buck stops with me, I was disappointed that poor old “RoboGreg” Combet was sent out to do the dirty work. It does reflect poorly on Rudd.
I wonder if Combet enjoys sticking it up the workers as much as he used to enjoy sticking up for the workers.
Now that it has become media wisdom that the insulation scheme was a failure, I think a thought experiment might is called for. If one wanted, in late 2008, to inject $2.4billion into the economy in a short space of time and early (say within 9 months) and which would enage unskilled or semi-skilled labour — which was thought to be likely the most savagely affected section of the emplyment market, what would one do?
Constraints:
1. Budget of 2.4 billion
2. Minimal scope for negative unintended consequences or externalities (e.g people being injured, defrauded and robbed in artifice burglaries (especially if they are “pensioners” or “war veterans”); putting employed people in legit businesses out of work, holding up traffic)
3. Bulk of money to be spent within 9 months
4. Minimal transaction cost in bureaucratic oversight and compliance while program operating
5. Minimal new equipment to be built and deployed in program areas (since this delays start and increases scope for unintended consequences)
6. Capable of being operated in all areas where underemployment of unskilled or semi-skilled labout is likely to spike
It’s not so easy to meet these constraints. Short of the “cash splash” approach which is almost certainly the cheapest way to get money into people’s hands and was done and criticised, everything I considered butts up against at least one of the above constraints.
Any ideas?
Loads Fran. More teachers. More doctors. More work on infrastructure. And money into people’s hands.
People died and from my reading of the 7.30 Report figures up to 200,000 more are at risk.
Rudd should state quite clearly the buck stops with him. Not hide this in the middle of an football scandal before the long weekend.
tssk, more teachers and more doctors can’t be generated in well under a year. Infrastructure projects require skilled labour, and rarely roll out in under 9 months either (that’s why BER is mostly school halls rather than school libraries).
What else can you suggest that would engage unskilled/semi-skilled labour, the group that needed to be given something to do?
P.S. it’s a bit more complicated in the details, but if required the GG sacks a government, not just the Prime Minister. In 1975 the Leader of the Opposition became a caretaker PM for the period until the DD election could be held.
Easy Fran.
1. Become the leader of the Liberal Party
2. Get elected with almost total media support.
3. Spend the money on any dodgy scheme you can think of, preferably spent mainly in coalition electorates.
4. Relax, knowing that whatever happens will receive minimal scrutiny from your mates in the media unless it’s positive news.
For Fscks sake, the usual suspects were hand-wringing this morning about lost jobs after they did their best job killing those jobs in the first place. They have no shame. And the government falling over this … pfffft. What a joke.
For the record I was in the ceiling of my rented house on the weekend – its insulated but NOT under this scheme (before the scheme or even the Rudd govt existed) and what I saw up there with the wiring frightened the hell out of me. I make sure that some lights now are used as little as possible.
So the beat up on this is just pure fscking rubbish. Dodgy tradesmen were here before, and they will be with us thereafter. As countless episodes of ‘A Current Affair’ have and will prove.
This thread borders on the unbelievable.
The Government have now admitted that the scheme was a complete failure, much more of a failure than they acknowledged even at the time they had to sack a Minister over it, to the extent that it is unrescuable. For which they deserve considerable kudos. Politicians having the courage to admit they got it wrong and will have to change course is not a frequent occurrence.
One might have hoped that commenters on LP who have described the insulation issue on previous threads as merely a “beat up”, a “whipped up media frenzy”, “crocodile tears”, minor harping by the RW media” would have the grace also to acknowledge that they might have underestimated the severity of the problems.
But on the whole – with honourable exceptions like tssk – the usual suspects are still describing it in terms like “a sensible measure”, “successful”, a mere
”media-induced reality”, “overstated” problems.
When you guys get a communal thought bubble going – using the word “thought” loosely at least in this instance; it is too early in the morning to rummage in my vocabulary for something better – it does take on a permanent life whatever subsequently happens in the real world.
CaptMoon @12 has it right. The economy is now infested by shils, spivs and idiots who set themselves up as small business people without the least interest in sustaining safe work practices. Labor should have known better than to drop that money into such an economy without building in very significant oversight. The ALP wasn’t naive but negligent in the administration of this project. Injuries and deaths among workers brought in to Australia on s457 visa are legion. Basically no-one but a few good unions gives a ratz-ass because they are furrinners. This time, however, it wasn’t foreign workers getting the shaft but residents.
OMG tigtog. I can’t believe I’m going to say this.
The GG needs to step in now and hand the reigns over to Tony Abbott until an election can be called.
And may God have mercy on us during that interim.
(And for those wondering, I’d be just as outraged if this had happened under Howard’s watch. However we all know that he would not have been held accountable. That’s beside the point.)
As for my teachers, doctors idea.
Yep. It would take time. But it would still stimulate the economy. Teachers have to spend money in the economy. As do students.
I’m really upset. The thought of this destroying the Rudd government really upsets me. Apart from this program I think they’ve been really good.
But come on. Even the staunchest of Rudd’s supporters here would have to admit that trying to hide this report during the Storm scandal is gutless and cowardly.
For those who want links.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2880571.htm
And for those with integrity trying to make a fist of it.
So much for protecting young workers.
You know, a lot of us were fond of chanting slogans like “Bush lied people died.”
If we don’t find the performance of the government lacking this time we should hang our head in shame.
WTF is all this s tupid talk about a re-tun of 1975? What Rudd needs to do is take every single one of the shonky operators to court and, if they’re convicted, throw them into jail for a couple of years. They’re the ones who stuffed it up.
What I don’t understand is how nobody in the ALP realised beforehand that the Howard/Abbott Liberal-Party-voting spivs would rort the system like this.
“note I said “politically botched”. In practical terms, the scheme appears by any sensible measure to have been successful, but e government weren’t capable of selling that story.”
I agree Robert. And listening to Virginnia Triolli this morning egging on an individual from the electrical area to say perhaps all insulated houses should be inspected and then pushing this as some kind of scoop demonstrated how pathetically this issue is being reported. What would they expect someone to say from that sector? More inspections the better for their industry obviously.
Yet, how many of the positive aspects of the Hawke Report have been looked at?:
http://www.blogocrats.com/index.php/top-menu-sections/topics-australian-politics/685-insulation-report
And tssk, should the Howard government take responsibility for a private healthcare rebate & capping of doctor training places that left public hospitals short of skilled staff leading to delays in operations, longer waiting lists, and so on?
N’
Wozza said:
That’s because it is. The program failed to reconcile three apparently compatible, but in practice incompatible objectives — rapid stimulus, efficient spending on a benefit and energy efficiency. Only the first was realised (as The Hawk report noted) but this was the most important of them. The others were mere desirables. The political atmospherics were poor because a large program allows carping critics a large target. This is the mediascape we have. Given the shonkiness of small business, it was inevitable that tabloid fodder would be generated.
It’s always easier to throw rocks than develop good public programs. Even at a much smaller scale — developing teaching programs, it is the exception rather than the rule for everything one wants to achieve to be realised just as you’ve conceived it. But if you deliver the course outcomes and know how to improve the next program version, then it’s a success no matter how disappointed you might be that things might have gone better.
tssk-
read Possums analysis of the situation. This may give you a more reasoned view of how successful/ unsuccessful the scheme was. I am also curious as to where the numbers for the article came from. If someone died due to breach of workcover standards (the boy who died of heatstroke and dehydration, or due to breaching the law (remembering the industry was unregulated prior to the scheme roll-out), such as the young man electrocuted by using banned steel staples, is that the fault of the scheme?
Tssk, I heard about the insulation scheme being potentially canned on Wednesday evening. Thursday morning it was confirmed. An hour or so later there was a story about the bookies suspending betting on the NRL wooden spoon, then a couple of hours after that, Gallop announced the Melbourne Storm problem. I also read about the child care thing before Gallop’s press conference. I cannot see how this was a deliberate move on the part of the government to hide the story; its just lucky. Unless you have a conspiracy theory about the bets coming from the Minister’s office after the NRL briefed them Wednesday night about their forthcoming action against Melbourne?
As for what Wozza says, I still call it beat up. This is not a good story for the government, but it is hardly the overblown worst-thing-in-the-world story some are making it out to be.
The insulation scheme was killed because dodgy spivs did a dodgy job. Yes the government should have been alert to this prospect and maybe Garrett should have – or should – resign his ministerial position over the affair. But suggestions the government should be *sacked*, what a lot of complete hot air.
The previous government *bribed an enemy leader*, or allowed such a leader to be bribed, and I don’t recall anyone saying that the whole government should be fired … just that Downer and couple of others should have resigned over what was an enduring source of international shame: aiding and abetting the declared enemy for a couple of bucks of dirty wheat money. But like Downer’s memory, this one apparently just goes down that big hole.
I’ll tell you what the government *should* do over the insulation affair and its certainly not resign. They should dissolve the bloody anti-union star chamber that is the Cole Commission and come down like a ton of bricks on all building industry safety issues.
Crypto-keynesianism + control freakery + pious intentions = clusterfuck
If the Collingwood Football Club also imploded, then Rudd just might get away with it.
The idea of a government-subsidised Irish backpacker sizzling away in the roof strikes at the very heart of the petit-bourgeois fantasy of independent property ownership.
An effective counter to this is the image of a sweaty priest spying on bedroom antics. That idea strikes at the heart of the petit-bourgeois fantasy of cultural independence.
Father Abbott … come on down!
Nasking, Tyro. Agree with you both on the Howard government. They should have been held accountable for those things. That they weren’t doesn’t mean we should give the ALP a free pass on this.
And Paul Burns. Yep. I agree. And since Rudd and co aren’t taking them to court then obviously the buck stops with them. Take them to court or take responsibility and talk to the GG.
tssk, calm down, you’re either taking the piss or getting hysterical.
Try these steps for relief:
Read the Hawke Report.
Have a couple of glasses of wine.
Consider why this government is being held to different standards than the previous government.
Consider why most Labor governments have been historically held to different standards.
Have another glass of wine.
Consider the merits of quoting the ABC on anything related to politics
Have another read of the Hawke Report.
Consider the statement (on another thread) that the Murdoch empire is the greatest threat to democracy in this and other countries.
Read what’s happening to Nick Clegg in the UK.
Have another glass of wine, and if you’re still not feeling better, I’ve a couple of books I could recommend.
I know what you are saying Adrian but people died. Damn right I hold Rudd to a higher standard than Howard. You should too.
tssk I know people died, but the question is who was responsible?
I realise we live in an age where it’s all the governmin’s fault, but surely we should at least wait for the results of the coroners’ reports before leaping to judgement.
I hope that I hold all governments to the same standard irrespetive of which party they belong to.
What I am saying is that you have allowed yourself to be manipulated by the anti-governmaent media, and that you need to start asking yourself why this campaign has developed rather than simply joining in.
People died because of shonky Liberal Party voting operators, tssk, not because of Kevin Rudd. You’re buying the Liberal party propaganda.
Try a good malt whisky.
Tssk, you should hand in your bloggers license over this appalling misreading of the issue.
What is it with you on this recurring Whitlamesque flashback thing?
Get a grip lad.
Well said adrian at #56.
N’
I had it done to my house. I took responsibility to see the quote was reasonable and that the job was done properly. And for my old victorian house the difference in cooling and heating has been wonderful. The old arctic hall stayed toasty all winter. It has always been a cool house because the Victorians built such thick (generally not cavity, rising damp I hear you cry) walls but it is even cooler now. So while some shoddy jobs have been done for householders who abrogated their responsibilities to ensure that work done in their homes was done properly, what about all the people like me who got the job done and are happy? It was a good scheme and it is sad to see shonks on one hand and dopey homeowners on the other who because it was free thought that any job was fine. A perfect storm really.
And as I said to Greg Hunt elsewhere when you start calling for the prosecution of the employers who killed those workers then i will think you are fair dinkum. But even I can see it is great political theatre.
PS Tssskkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk is v funny The GG stepping in. rofl
“communal thought bubble”, what?
It’s the right-wing Groupthink communal thought bubble that maintains the insulation scheme was a complete failure: that every house insulated by the scheme is a death-trap. (And who wait with fingers crossed, praying that whichever house fire they next see on the news can be added to the death toll)
I think the GG should follow Tssk’s advice.
The sloganising potential is enormous:
Whitlam, 1975: Fraser is “Kerr’s Cur”.
Rudd, 2010: Abbott is “Bryce Lice”.
These events would be sufficient to induce Garry McDonald to don one last time the razor-burn stigmata of Norman Gunston.
“Consider why this government is being held to different standards than the previous government”
I have been. Had this occurred under the Howard government I have no doubt whatsoever that LP would be – rightly – holding them to account.
There is surely a limit to the prioritising of ideological partisanhip when poorly conceived and executed public policy is at issue.
The government has recognised that this is a stuff-up. So has everyone else pretty much. It’s not ‘disloyal’ or ‘Toryism’ to make this observation. No matter how well-intentioned the scheme was, its execution has been deeply flawed and the government is ultimately responsible.
It’s certainly not the stuff of government resignation and I doubt very much that the coroner is going to hold Kevin Rudd personally responsible for anyone’s death, but that doesn’t negate his accountability for presiding over a pretty crap piece of program delivery.
You should all try a good malt whisky.
You miss the point, Geoff Honor, which is that this government in general and the HIS in particular has been the victim of a totally unfair media campaign. The word ‘debacle’ was splashed acroos the front of The Australian today, and elsewhere we have ‘botched’ ‘disastrous’ and similar adjectives paraded with monotonous regularity.
Yet the Hawke Report found very differently:
Instead of parroting whatever line that you’re fed by the Murdoch press, and by proxy The ABC, perhaps you should consider the reality, not media induced spin.
Well yes.
But for better or for worse, this is the country that Rudd worked so assiduously to govern.
This aspect of Australian culture is a given. A-wishin’ and a-prayin’ won’t change this culture at all.
If an aspiring PM forgets the nature of the nation he governs, then any troubles that arise from that denial and/or amnesia is his own fault.
Like in golf, you play the ball where it lies.
How so, Katz?
Last time I checked it is very un-Australian to be a whinger.
It is certainly a peculiar “The Australian” trait to bank or play down good news while examining the entrails of shortcomings in minute detail.
Complaining about an incinerated Irish backpacker in your roof space cannot be legitimately interpreted as “whinging”.
And in any case, certain kinds of whinging are quintessentially Australian. For example, The Dismissal has spawned whinging on an industrial scale, yet Australians who didn’t like it did nothing to prevent it, to combat it, or to ensure that it never happened again.
That’s world-class whinging.
This is universally good advice for dealing with any public policy issue or matter of Government delivery.
It’s certainly a very common The Australian trait but only when the natural party of government is in oppossition.
“Complaining about an incinerated Irish backpacker in your roof space cannot be legitimately interpreted as “whinging”.”
Completely misses the point, but perhaps you are being deliberately provocative?
The point being…
“a backflip on a promise to build 260 child care centres (it turns out they may not be needed). ”
Ay backflipping everywhere. A real olympic gymnastics team at the moment, federal labor. Not much to feel good about.
Adrian, Adrian, you’re having a lend, right? The Hawke report didn’t use the word “debacle” so that proves it wasn’t?
You are aware that Allan Hawke is an ex-Chief of Staff to Keating. Do you really think he got the job on the grounds of his complete objectivity and his terms of reference were “tell it like it is, Allan, we’ll take it publicly on the chin?”
Look at a different way. One thing that was in the terms of reference was to provide “recommendations to be used to inform the design and delivery of the new Household Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme”.
He really must have uncovered something horrific, regardless of what he wrote for public consumption, if the findings were so bad that he couldn’t deliver on an instruction to provide an excuse to launch more of the same.
You might want to consider your own advice about not just parroting lines.
OK Wozza, you write the headline:
Hawke Report Confirms Home Insulation Debacle
by Dennis Shannahan
Investigations by this newspaper have revealed that the author of the report into the Government’s botched HIS was an ex-Chief of Staff to Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating. This obviously calls into question the findings of the report that somehow fails to use the words debacle, botched or disastrous, and is suspiciously uncritical of a scheme that was responsible for at least 4 deaths.
etc etc etc
The government’s main problem with this is political. They really can’t trumpet that “it was a success because only 4 people died in rooves (after all, careless sparkies die in roof spaces all the time)”. See? It just doesn’t fly, even though it’s true.
To be consistent with the Murdoch line, that headline should have read:
“Hawke Report Downplays HIS Debacle.”
A sensible journalist less under the thumb of his Press Baron would have written a story headed:
“How a glitch became a political inferno.”
Katz @ 70,
But … but Gough told us to go home!
Bernard Keane at Crikey claims Hawke Report exonerates Garrett.
So how far down the scale should blame lie.
Before you answer that apply it to BPH or any other big company that has wholey subcontracted a job out.
The owner/subcontractor?
The shiftboss?
The employee?
Or the BHP manager for authorising the job?
BHP chairman because hes overall in charge?
Im not talking criminal proceedings though, just where people would assign the moral blame.
Im guessing most here would be happy to sheet the blame home as fur up the ladder as they could, why should this sheme be any different?
Tyro Rex @53:
“They should dissolve the bloody anti-union star chamber that is the Cole Commission and come down like a ton of bricks on all building industry safety issues.”
Oh yeah. Right effin’ on.
Have I missed something? I still haven’t seen any Coroners’ findings on any of those deaths. It seems like a very long time for family and others to wait. No one has suggested there are political implications in delay either. Am I naive to think coronial findings would be significant here?
Don’t think its got that far yet, Patricia WA.Think coroner’s investigations are still going on or the cases simply haven’t been scheduled for hearing yet. A little while ago there were some shonky installers facing court under fair trading proceedings or health and safety. Don’t even know iof that court case is finished.
“Why were installers not forced to fit downlight covers” When the problem was identifed, they were. The question should be, “why they did not have covers in the beginning?” Four people have died. Unless, I am wrong, one was from heat exhaustion. No evidence is available as to how the others die. I am sure that future coroner’s inquests will lay the blame with poor electricity circuits in the home, not the government. The only real fact to come out is that our homes are not safe. The law should be changed in all states to ensure that circuit breakers be connected to all electricity in the home.
The gummint offered to subsidise the installation of insulation in the roof of me abode. So I sought out a reputable and trained installer who gave me a quote for the job and installed the appropriate insulation with appropriate care.
If there was a problem installing the insulation (e.g. one of the staff got hurt) then I would assume it was the installer’s responsibility (or the OHS body that regulates ‘em). Insufficient training and all that.
If a problem develops later with the insulation (e.g. causes a fire) then it’s also the installer’s problem. Shoddy materials or installation and all that.
The gummint only got involved to pick up the tab (although I prolly paid for this freebie through me taxes anyway).
If I took out a loan to pay for the insulation and someone got hurt, would the meeja be demanding me bank manager cop the blame?
Its about as crazy as Toyota recalling half a million priuses just because a very small number of them have had brake problems. Interestingly there have been people doing analysis of the prius safety record and even with the brake problems they have a better safety record than other comparable sized vehicles. So I guess under the same criteria as you want to use for the insulation scheme Toyota’s problems were just a media beatup as well.
sorry that should have been “better safety record than the average for other comparable sized vehicles.”
Exactly jethro @ 86. I can’t believe there are still people that can’t see where immediate, and ultimate, responsibility lies in this saga.
Demand-driven impetus on a particular market does not absolve anyone on the supply-side from their respective obligations.
“Oh, but there’s a load of cash available if we cut corners; I want us to do five jobs a day instead of two.” I could give a shit: it’s bad luck. If it can kill, you do it right.
Shit, demand for budget flights in the airline industry has grown significantly over the last 10 years, resulting in increases in capacity in order to service that demand: more planes; more engineers; more pilots.
Notwithstanding, at a minimum, I expect my pilot knows how to fly a fucking plane; irrespective of how much I might have paid for my ticket; heck I might have got it for free and paid the taxes only!
The same rules apply to a geezer working for Acme Insulation.
Yep, I have to conclude that this is more a political sideshow than anything of substance.
Except that a worthwhile initiative has now been canned because the ALP were unable to manage the affair.
That was possibly because up to the time this blew up, they had become complacent and lazy.
That left them vunnerable to attack.
At least I hope that is what it was. Because the other implication, ie that they were just trying to hang Garrett out to dry and this was a good way to let it happen would be a little disappointing.
After all, the ALP could have acted as a team to deflect the criticism and perhaps even turn it back on the Libs. There are plenty of cogent reasons that could have been advanced for Garrett and the Govt not to have been in the firing line. However, once out there, and people (wrongly) convinced the Gummint ‘bungled with a debacle’, no amount of sane argument will change their minds. That would involve people admitting their first judgements were wrong. Hah. Like to see that.
Perhaps the best to come out of this is that it has shaken the complacency of the ALP. Small comfort really.
More likely they were voting Labor – all the way to the bank. Who else was going to throw billions at them?
@ 91 – depends on which electorate(s) they live/work in – next gummint, anyway.
Craig @ 91
Since when did thieves ever respect their victims?
In this case, one could argue dodgy operators stole from the Government, and in the process killed innocent workers.
I am relieved that the media have not blamed those killed (which is not always the case with our media and victims of crime – s/he was asking for it etc), they certainly are getting stuck into those who were stolen from.
Or we could all just wait for the coroners’ reports. Nah, let’s just sit in judgement.
Perhaps I could put it another way.
If it were the Liberals that had put up the insulation scheme and the same outcomes had occurred, what would the (dick)headlines have been? The same?
Or:
Shonky thieves steal from Government and kill workers – Government to relentlessly pursue wrongdoers.
PM to chase shonky installers.
Workers need to exercise their right not to work in unsafe conditions.
Unsafe workers to be punished.
Experience in insulation scheme shows that more industrial reform needed – Liberal PM said today. If workers have more to lose, they will be more careful said Tony Rabbott, and in the cause of worker safety we will ensure they have more incentive to be careful.
(Oh, and if you think that last line of reasoning is fanciful – it was actually used by management of early English rail companies to avoid fitting vacuum brakes on trains, and a few more than four people died before they were forced by Gummint to change – we are heading back there).
“Vote ALP. For more taxpayers money to be spent on the home insulation scheme”.
Not seeing Rudd going with that slogan for the 2010 campaign myself.
Marks,
Let’s see from 4 Corners tonight if the headlines should be:
“Government Warned Scheme Was Likely to Kill and Increase House Fires”, with the subtitle “Government determined to spend money and continues anyway.”
I am sure News Corp papers will do it in a less word way.
This, though, should be enough:
Andrew
I’d be interested in exploring the correlation between slews in GDP (both ways) patterns of workplace morbidity. I imagine that any increase in per capita GDP would lead to more deaths. I’d also be surprised if the correlation wasn’t especially strong during periods of housing and construction booms/busts.
If so, then the government’s real crime was underpinning economic activity. They ought to have known more would be killed on the job.
Of course, during recessions, people die for recession-driven reasons, but since we are cherrypicking, I believe we should ignore that. I also believe that people who set great store by personal responsibility are not being hypocrites when they blame the government for deaths cause by people ignoring laws aimed at underpinning workplace safety.
After all, who needs careful analysis if you can have a good tabloid headline by trading on some mother’s grief?
Fran,
Sorry, but I would consider that an unworthy comment – perhaps even silly. We are all responsible for our own actions. As I have said before, to me this scheme was the economic equivalent of throwing a billion dollars (actually 2.5 bn) into the street. Of course those that trample others in the resulting stampede should be prosecuted for their own actions. However, those who have thrown the cash should also bear at the very least a part of the blame.
If the reports of the 4 Corners show tonight are correct, and senior officials and possibly ministers were warned of the likely consequences, all that should do is show that not only were they willingly blind as to the likely consequences of throwing the money around, they also chose to ignore it when they were shown (with examples) of what the consequences were likely to be. Tanner has already said that they did not dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s. Again, if the reports are true then this shows they were also willing to risk serious injuries, deaths and house fires to get the cash out there.
Sorry, Fran, but your seeming blindness on this issue seems to be approaching pure disingenuousness.
Perhaps the reason they were focused on outcomes rather than safety in the Environment Dept is that workplace safety is the responsibility of the States and a mountain of legislation clear as day exists, so that perhaps the people in the Environment Dept might have thought their priority was actually achieving something.
The question of delegation is always a problem in any organisation. How much can one micro-manage and look over others’ shoulders?
Given the fact that there were already mountains of long-established laws and regulations covering OH&S, was it really unreasonable for the Environment Dept to think that maybe there were people out there with greater experience than them who already had the job to look out for this?
Given that, is it such a leap of judgement to say that if there is someone else out there with greater experience and with the legislative clout to do something, then maybe the Environment Dept should get on with doing what it does best and leave others to do what they are supposed to do?
If one cannot rely on the existing State based legislation to be upheld by people with experience in those State Depts, then who on earth is better able to do it?
Why did those State Depts not put on more inspectors? They knew what was going on. They warned the Feds. Well, if there was a problem needing warning, why did they not act in accordance with their own legislation?
Furthermore, with mountains of State OH&S Legislation, what exactly was the Federal Government supposed to do? Add another layer of laws? It seems to me that if the shonky operators weren’t going to abide by the State legislation, passing a few more laws in Canbra wouldn’t achieve much. It also seems counterintuitive to me that the Feds could do a better job given that they had no great OH&S expertise in inspection and regulation such as the States have.
However, since many people here think the Feds should be copping the blame for these State failures, perhaps the Feds should take over the management of OH&S. If the Feds are going to wear the blame, they ought to have the control at least.
Oh, and with the zeal with which people who ‘rort’ the social security system are hunted and prosecuted, I hope the same zeal is displayed toward those who rorted the insulation scheme.
Wouldn’t be fair otherwise.
Marks,
If I throw (let’s say) $2.5Bn into the street it is the police’s responsibility to keep order, is it not? If I shout “fire” in a crowded cinema, it is the owner’s responsibility to ensure that there are enough exits and to keep order during any evacuation. Not my problem – it is always someone else’s fault.
The simple fact is that because the home insulation business had several well-established operators with good names, an experienced workforce and very few problems that States had, quite correctly, not put a lot of effort into regulating this area. The sudden huge inrush of funds simply could not be regulated by the infrastructure that was in place at the time. It would have taken months or years to train enough inspectors to cover it. The existing operators could not cope with the huge demand nor could they hire enough staff and supervisors to do it properly. The result was predictable and, it looks as if the government was in fact warned in advance.
It looks like they chose not to listen. However, following your logic, they had nothing whatsoever to do with the predictable outcomes of their actions. I find that a very odd outcome – but you seem comfortable with it.
We’ve been over this before Andrew. Your analogy is poor because unlike “throwing 2.5 billion ointo the street” there were rules. Every provider should have known the rules and if they chose to flout them they were responsible.
It’s very comforting to blame the government when people do the wrong thing, but specious all the same. It’s even more amusing to see an avowed libertarian doing so — in effect condemning the market at work and calling for more government control.
Fran,
We have been over that before and I showed you why this is not a market failure – a government caused massive, temporary increase in demand has nothing whatsoever to do with the normal operations of a market. The fact you bring that nonsense up again is interesting. I am not sure whether the attempt is merely trolling or not.
On your first point I have never, ever denied that the employers responsible should face whatever penalties are appropriate under the law, and I make that point again above, if you care to read my argument.
You (IIRC) failed to answer why the government should not also bear some responsibility as it was their openly stated plan to attract a lot of inexperienced installers into the industry – and it now appears they were directly warned of the likely consequences.
Andrew
We went over this at Quiggins and your esplanation there was no more persuasive than when you utter it here. The government is a buyer like any other. If market forces can’t deal with these prrdictable flows, it only underlines why the assertion that they can is too simplistic.
You are the one using silly trolling analogies about money being thrown into the street.
The government was in a hurry to roll out a stimulus program and perforce had to roll it out this way if it was to work as a stimulus program. It was entitled in theory to rely on business to observe the relevant law. That was in practice the kind of mistake made by those who are overly trusting of market forces. Perhaps they’d have been better just paying people to visit their local gym — but then I suppose someone could still have had an accident on the way there and it would still have been the government’s fault.
I am sorry Andrew, but even if I were to accept your analogy… Ok, let’s say I do for the sake of the argument. Why is it again that the States whose responsibility it is did not act? Could you please tell me why they could not have recruited and trained inspectors/auditors to enforce their laws? IT WAS THEIR JOB. Whatever failures the Feds had pales into insignificance beside the States.
What is interesting here is the politics, and if you want to see some Rudd Government bashing, here it comes:
The Labor Govt was getting pretty complacent before this. Sky high polls and all. Therefore, rather than smash this out of the ground for six like they should have, they dithered until various parts of the commentariat formed and expressed opinions. Negative opinions. Of course once opinions are formed, getting people to admit they were wrong is herculean. In fact the more people are shown to be wrong, the harder they argue. (Witness the ABC and 4 Cornys).
Hence Rudd had no political alternative – he was never going to convince the commentariat they were wrong – even though they are. Thus he had to back down himself. Too slow by half, and all due to complacency.
The next political aspect is that the Labor Government let Garrett hang out to dry. Where was the teamwork? Where was the coming together to defend someone under attack? Rather telling that lack of teamwork when the going got a little tough.
The final aspect of criticism is that the workers party should have been all over an industrial issue like this. They should have been able to shrug their way out of this easily, and could have if they really knew their OH&S – as you would expect a worker oriented party to do. Much too much latte and chardonnay, and not enough time in the workforce methinks.
Final political point. Out there in the real world of both employer and employee, so many people have done OH&S courses where they bang on at you about the various STATE laws and regulations, that in their hearts, most people out there who have worked for a living know that the responsibility for OH&S at goverment level resides with the States and Territories. No amount of telling people it all of a sudden is not the case will really change their minds.
Which is one reason why the ALP is still ahead in the polls. I don’t see any drift in those other than can be explained by a rather natural decline from quite un-natural highs.
Fran,
If (for a moment) we accept that massive and rapid government intrusion in a market by becoming the overwhelmingly largest buyer of the product and at what was an effectively a floor price set at about (or above) the previous average price and was a buyer that effectively did not monitor at all the quality of the product…
No – no logic at all there in the idea that this was somehow a “market” failure. Sorry – but that is (IMHO) just plain silly.
The normal rules of caveat emptor really work when the buyer actually cares. The government only cared about shovelling as much (of our) money out the door as fast as they could – as Tanner has made perfectly clear. If you cannot see that this was not a normal market interaction then you really have been blinded.
.
Marks,
No matter who the government (State or Federal) body responsible for the inspection process they would have had to have found enough people that had a relevant background, hired them, trained them, monitored their growth carefully etc. etc. etc. They then would have had to have sacked them a few months later when the scheme ended.
This was simply never going to be able to happen in an environment where the companies themselves were desperately trying to hire the same people that would have been qualified to act as inspectors to try to run the jobs themselves.
In any case, who would have wanted to take a job as a government insulation inspector when the life of the job was only ever going to be as long as the stimulus package? The industry was also bound to collapse to smaller than its previous size after the package expired as the pool of houses needing to be insulated would then be much smaller. The result should have been clear – months of training (to get the training right) to get qualified for a job that had a maximum life of less than two years? Great.
.
As with the silly idea that an expansion of the number of firms from 250 to 10,000 in the space of a few months was somehow a normal situation in a market there was simply no chance that a large enough number of inspectors could have been ready to cope with the size of the expansion. The whole scheme almost could not have been designed any better to attract illegal and unethical behaviour.
The whole thing was not merely poorly executed – it was a very bad idea from the start.
Hm, let’s see, 1000 inspectors extra ought to have had enough feet on the ground to vastly increase the likelihood of a site being audited.
What did these inspectors really have to be able to do?
Check people weren’t working in roofs on hot days. Check they weren’t stapling things over wires. Ask a few questions (formulated by experts with correct answers supplied), and if anything looked dodgy – call the smaller number of experts. The task itself was not rocket science. So pretty feasible I would think.
As for recruiting – er there was a financial crisis, and plenty of people unemployed with basic industrial experience out there. How about a few recent retirees lookng for some $$ to tide them over the crisis.
Not Rocket Science.
Again I have to ask – why did not the States Do this?
Marks,
The answer is simple – governments are uniformly big, slow to operate and often make bad calls on how they spend the money that we hand them in taxation revenue.
The only real exception to that general rule is that local governments are often small.
Ah, you mean like BHP at its hot briquette plant?
Or various listed property trusts one could name?
Or Lehman Brothers?
Or that local firm I rang two months ago to install a roller on my sliding door and it won’t be ready for three weeks?
Them?
Quite depressing really. If only it were Government that was incompetent, our choices would be clear.
Marks,
Most businesses are small, very quick to respond to consumers and make quite a few good decisions. I still remember waiting 6 months to get a phone line from the old Telecom Australia. I can now get one in a few minutes.
As for big companies – Lehman’s went from a big bank to gone in less than a month. That is quicker than any government program I have ever heard of – even the big stuff-ups.
“If I throw (let’s say) $2.5Bn into the street it is the police’s responsibility to keep order, is it not? If I shout “fire” in a crowded cinema, it is the owner’s responsibility to ensure that there are enough exits and to keep order during any evacuation. Not my problem – it is always someone else’s fault.”
Ah the redoubtable Mr Reynolds, he always obliges when an OTT, unsupported assertion is called for (not that we did, this is getting gratuitous). Anyway it looks as though he’s never heard of ‘contributory negligence’. Ah well, it’s quaint to see these home-spuns trotted out as though they are fact, it has a certain rustic innocence about it, much like a van Gogh.
I would hazard a guess that in an action for negligence the role of the Commonwealth would be considered far to remote to the damage. Also, there is at least one precedent that knocked back an action in contract based on a change to government policy.
I would think that an action for negligence would be an excellent way of testing the somewhat hysterical accusation repeated ad-nauseum by A. Reynolds and others.
“Quite depressing really. If only it were Government that was incompetent, our choices would be clear.”
Indeed. I think a lot of right wing ideologues like Mr Reynolds haven’t actually worked in the corporate world. If they had they would have been exposed to the inefficiency, nepotism and stupidity that plagues most large corporates. Lack of leadership and a diffusion of responsibility means that projects that are very broken from the outset have to bleed millions of dollars to get to the crisis stage so someone will step in and try to fix it. Of course by then it’s too late and there’s a desperate flurry of activity to stave off the inevitable. When that doesn’t work it’s back to the drawing board for another go.
And a few bad and illegal ones, Andrew. This discussion would not be happening if a number of small business spivs had not jumped into the insulation scheme business with nary a thought for their employees, the customers or the satisfaction of a job well done.
Let alone the important role they were supposed to be playing in providing jobs in precarious economic times or the mightier still imperative to do something very positive for the environment.
You are championing people, Andrew, who have shown no morals or sensitivity and should be sent to classes in business ethics while paying off their debts to society. John Howard aided and abetted a very ugly mentality which has made the most basic provision of goods and services random and difficult.
“And listening to Virginia Triolli this morning egging on an individual from the electrical area to say perhaps all insulated houses should be inspected and then pushing this as some kind of scoop demonstrated how pathetically this issue is being reported.”
It seems I may owe Virginia & the electrical expert an apology. If the extent of the problem is as bad as we were shown on 4 Corners then it seems that their pursuit of such an extensive inspection regime was on the money.
If Kevin Rudd & Peter Garrett were aware of the safety hazards and ignored warnings w/ the express goal of creating jobs, and covered up such during Senate investigations, then in my view they should resign.
As I believe John Howard & other ministers should have based on taking Australia in a knee-jerk fashion into war on faulty evidence & lies regarding refugee-related incidents…Alexander Downer for incompetence regarding the 290 million AWB bribe to Saddam’s regime…and Tony Abbott for his handling of health department-related issues.
Furthermore, I believe there should be a 4 Corners investigation into the lump-sum baby bonus scheme.
N’
Money being spent fixing this stupid scheme is the reason why promises are needing to be broken on child care centres and paid maternity leave. Interesting to see the extent to which working women are being taken fro granted by the government.
Watched 4 Corners with the sound off and closed caption while I read a history book.Even l9ike that this sounded like a grade one stuff up. But its the Howardite shonky small businessmen complaining that they’re scapregoats and the top public servants too scared to say look Minister/PM this is going to kill people who are to blame.
OTON, if those Cabinet-in-Confidence documents prove Ruddy knew the risks and ignored them for the sake of the economy – not good.
OTOH, the Libs were always punishing us for the sake of the economy, weren’t they? In fact, I seem to recollect they bribed a government with whom we were at war.
At least Rudd and co haven’t commited treason.
In the private sector anyone who oversaw a fiasco on such scale as the Insulation Affair would (most deservedly) not hold their job.
Yet there are people who are able to suspend reality and state that Rudd & crew are more or less blameless? Bwahahahhaha………..
On the contrary SATP some elements of the private sector have shown themselves totally wanting when it came to the ethical distribution of a government backed good and service.
Correction Joe2, the buck stops at the top.
The government announced that anyone who presented with paperwork showing they had “installed insulation” in a residence would be given $1,600.
AND THEN the govt acts all surprised when gypsies come out in force?
Bwahahahaha…. it would be funny, except we were stupid enough to give these dickheads our country to run.