Rudd Government failings vs. achievements

Whiskers said:

Nah, I'm not setting out to paint anyone, the gov or opposition, in any light or side with anyone, just getting to the facts and reality in a legal and economic like manner as opposed to some crying foul or wolf at every turn a la the introduction of the GST, saying 'Sorry' and many other dynamic changes or media beat-ups.

As I have said before I tend to be more pragmatic than critical. I'm just trying to get to the facts to be in a better position to gain from any change than those who seem intent on just making a lot of noise.

Re noise...

Just a quick comment re the recent Auditor general report into that school spending... as I recall he found about 5% (not sure if it was projects or cash) was not wisely spent.

While it was concerned at some of the examples the media highlighted, it seems even they have not been able to demonstrate that percentage is far wrong.

Similarly with the insulation scheme, I've previously said I'm not impressed that so much gov money reportedly had to be spent to rectify the bodgy installations... but it since seems that the gov has held back a lot of payments to installers until their claims have been checked.

Re the insulation scheme, hands up all that didn't do their own research and helped perpetuate the scheme by applying for something for nothing. Not me!

I knew the insulation rebate was not only not effective insulation but a waste of money, hence the reason why I didn't even contemplate applying.

Of course the deaths issue, as unpalatable as it may be to some, always rested on the employers under long established workplace laws... as has been indicated with the first of the criminal charges against employers as I recall under the Electricity Safety Act.

A bit dramatic isn't it. A conflict of interest certainly, but hardly a fight with our most productive sector, more a fight with some conglomerates that in the gov's view, are taking too much cash offshore. There is a difference which one has to seperate before shooting innocent victims in the crossfire.

Agree. I have said that previously.

Agreed not the most competant, but I think you are tending to over react a bit there.

I suspect I was one of the first to point this out, but, one poll doesn't make an election win.

Also, I don't like or trust politicans per-se... hence my pragmatic approach to find the facts, and annoyance at scaremongers who are either politically biased or just like to cry wolf for the hell of it, or some who just get hysterical (behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion) when expressing themselves.

Click to expand...

In a legal and economic manner? WTF .... you a lawyer now? Nowhere have I seen the "a la" GST as being cried foul? Wait .... there was one comment about a month or so ago but it did not blip the radar. Saying SORRY is a dynamic change ?? WTF ... no seriously .... WTF??

The auditor general was hamstrung from the get go Whiskers. 16.2 billion was spent on the BER of our money and a 5% wastage is acceptable to you? So therefore $810,000,000 is acceptable as a waste proportion according to your figures?? WTF ??? This money could have gone to HOSPITALS, DOCTORS and POLICE for crying out loud !!!!!!!!! What the hell is wrong with you??

What about the insulation scheme? 2.5 billion spent there and a 5% wastage is another $125,000,000 WASTED ! GIVE THE MONEY TO HEALTH ! GEEEEEEEEEZZZZUUUUUUUZZZ .... and you wonder why we get upset? BUT WAIT ........ billions more to be spent to fix and clean the stuff !!!!! Ya got to be kidding me Whiskers.

We are business people that cannot tolerate waste because it comes off our bottom line ie PROFIT !! We cannot tolerate incompetent staff because they cost us money through lost productivity. We cannot have an incompetent and spendaholic government that is sending us towards a debt that is going to be hard to handle. What part of this do you fail to understand???

As for giving us a definition of "hysterical" - are you an English teacher now?

It appears your version of pragmatism is as bent as mine.

Whiskers also wrote "Of course the deaths issue, as unpalatable as it may be to some, always rested on the employers under long established workplace laws... as has been indicated with the first of the criminal charges against employers as I recall under the Electricity Safety Act."

Is this a legal matter you are attempting to highlight? The report to the Goverment from the experts was presented to Peter Garrett who chose not to read it for a 10 month period before the excreta hit the spinning blades. They clearly outlined this would happen (the deaths that is, which is according to you "unpalatable to some") It should not have happened .... period.

So if it was the installers fault why did PM Rudd sideline Garrett, kick him to the back bench out of harms way, HALT the insulation scheme and promote Combet to clean up the mess? Then call for an inquiry which the Govt is refusing to attend to be asked some questions only to label it a "Liberal stunt" ???

ALL FACTS ....... not some Liberal, hysterical, emotional, diatribe.

You claim not to be representing any particular faction or party. You claim to be a practicing pragmatist as well. You sure are doing a lousy job of disguising it.

I agree with you trainspotter. If you think the home insulation and school buildings programe were a rort, wait untill the N.B.N gets underway and thats not to mention Canberra running hospital funding. They are also going to fund extra nurse and doctor training, can't wait to see all the household pets enrolled for assistance with training.

Whiskers said:

Just a quick comment re the recent Auditor general report into that school spending... as I recall he found about 5% (not sure if it was projects or cash) was not wisely spent.

Click to expand...

Whiskers, the government cleverly ensured that the auditor-general was not to look at 'value for money'. This, of course, is the total point of our objections. So what sort of a further waste of money is what is being paid to the auditor-general? The combination of stupidity and spin is breathtaking.

Rudd cannot back down from the resources super tax. He can't survive another back down, and besides he is using the money for health reform. He can use the wedge on the opposition, i.e. if you reject the super tax you reject health reform.

Yesterday, in a meeting of Labor MPs in the wake of the polling collapse of support for the ALP, Mr Rudd said he would not back down over the proposed resources tax but was prepared to negotiate with the mining companies over "transitional arrangements" and "implementation".

Facing confrontation from the mining industry and confusion over the new resources tax, senior Labor figures are warning that Mr Rudd cannot afford to "back down" on the resources super-profits tax after his dumping of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme last month.

But the Labor states of Queensland and South Australia joined the Liberal government in Western Australia to criticise the new tax and demand changes.

Click to expand...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...ners-on-rent-tax/story-e6frgd66-1225864761723

moXJO said:

Don't think he was checking vaule for money either Not sure if that 5% is right.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/schools-watch/ber-auditor-finds-some-progress-on-jobs/story-fn56ulhe-1225862452369

Click to expand...

I'll clarify below, moXJO.

Julia said:

Whiskers, the government cleverly ensured that the auditor-general was not to look at 'value for money'. This, of course, is the total point of our objections. So what sort of a further waste of money is what is being paid to the auditor-general? The combination of stupidity and spin is breathtaking.

Click to expand...

By looking at value for money in individual projects, do you mean an independant costing of every project? That cost would have been significant and I don't recall any governments going to that length to scrutinise their own spending programs. Please provide evidence if that's what you think is the norm.

From moXJO's link...

Ms Gillard said today that the report found that 95 per cent of school principals saw the program as providing “ongoing value to their school and school community”.

Click to expand...

I don't recall whether is was Gillard or someone else where I heard that 95% of school principals were relatively happy with the work they got.

But, since 'value' is a rather subjective term, there is more than one way to ascertain whether there was widespread reckless or frauduland spending and the Auditor General found that 95% of School principals were relatively happy.

Now that doesn't necessairly mean the same as each project construction is value for money compared to third party estimates, but it's an indication that the sort of bad examples highlighted in the media are probably not as widespread as some would have us believe.

Given the hundreds of projects undertaken, the few bad one's I've seen are certainly bad, but certainly not an extreme number in the total scheme of things. As a mate of mine used to say, sometimes **** happens. I recall some departmental investigation was indicated re some of these cases. There may have even been some sackings or reallocation of duties and still time for fraud charges if applicable. Be a bit patient to let (or get involved in the process of) justice take it's course and see what eventually pans out.

As subjectivity goes, what criteria do you use to gauge value for money, micro or macro, fiscal or economic? Should the gov use the same criteria as you or a private entity?

Is the baby bonus for example value for money... and using what subjective or objective criteria?

Now, I repeat again, I'm also not happy at the poor quality of a canteen building, about double the expected cost of other buildings and getting something other than what the school wanted... nor was I happy with the cost of the 'Pacific Solution' under howard or the current cost of detention centers... I'm just pragmatic about it since at the end of the day the collective voter has the say.

Governments are often not the most cost effective operators. For example during all my school years, and then some, I can recall the State Public Works Department turning up at school regularly sanding back and repainting what seemed to be a perfectly good paint job.

Being a pragmatist, please provide some real data to make your case not just headlines. I'm sure the opposition and certain parts of the media have investigated widely, show me their data if you think they have more.

Hello Wiskers, If you were unhappy with the "Pacific Solution" and the current cost of detention centres. You are going to be really happy with the current Governments latest of housing the asylum seekers or que jumpers in hotels. That should blow the cost out nicely.

trainspotter said:

Whiskers also wrote "Of course the deaths issue, as unpalatable as it may be to some, always rested on the employers under long established workplace laws... as has been indicated with the first of the criminal charges against employers as I recall under the Electricity Safety Act."

Is this a legal matter you are attempting to highlight? The report to the Goverment from the experts was presented to Peter Garrett who chose not to read it for a 10 month period before the excreta hit the spinning blades. They clearly outlined this would happen (the deaths that is, which is according to you "unpalatable to some") It should not have happened .... period.

Click to expand...

Agree it should not have happened. BUT, as I said before the long standing workplace safety laws already compelled the employer to provide a safe work place for their employees as indicated by recent charges being laid, in this case under the Electrical Safety Act.

Realistically, workplace accidents happen all the time. Sometimes the employers fault, sometimes the employees carelessness.

So if it was the installers fault why did PM Rudd sideline Garrett, kick him to the back bench out of harms way, HALT the insulation scheme and promote Combet to clean up the mess?

Click to expand...

You're overlapping two different and legally seperate issues. Firstly, as I've said before, I believe the scheme was an all of gov decision, mainly Rudds, but Garratt was demoted to take some anti gov sting out of the issue and appoint a more seasoned operator to defuse it. Partly economic and partly political.

Secondly, if you seriously think an employer can argue loop holes and a scheme prone to abuse (by weakness of policing) as a defence for ignoring long standing workplace safety laws and common law, or even to mitigate his/her responsibility under those laws, you are seriously uninformed legally.

From an administritive financial, economic and policing perspective the scheme was lacking, but none of that negates already inacted and long established workplace safety or common law.

In a nutshell, those dodgy opertators took a chance at thinking they could cut corners and get away with it, similar to what drunk drivers do every day, endangering other peoples lives... and at least one so far has been charged.

Your rationalle is somewhat like blaming the gov for poor road condition causing a death. It comes down to the law of negligence. If the party was familiar with the road by driving on it regularly, that is a mitigating circumstance. They knew the deterioting road condition and took the risk. If it was say that roadworks was happening and no signage was in place that's a different matter. The motorist would have a case.

Similarly, workplace safety laws (signage) were long in place and these dodgy installers chose to ignore them. That's entirely their responsibility as is any death that occurred as a result.

Administration is a critical component of any scheme.

If all the responsibility falls on the operators and none on the government as administrators, then why have government in the first place ?

sptrawler said:

Hello Wiskers, If you were unhappy with the "Pacific Solution" and the current cost of detention centres. You are going to be really happy with the current Governments latest of housing the asylum seekers or que jumpers in hotels. That should blow the cost out nicely.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this is a hell of a mess. While the Howard approach was certainly more effective in stopping illegal arrivals it pushed the boundaries of empathy, compassion and international law.

On the other hand Rudd over-reacted to the compassion side and despite some policy tightening or at least freezing the processing, they really need to do a lot more to stop them from leaving Indonesia.

A simple solution seems to be to flatly refuse to process anyone, or at least give priority to, anyone who applies for political asylum from say our embasy in Indonesia. That would considerably alter the incentive to pay smugglers I would have thought.

Whiskers wrote "Just a quick comment re the recent Auditor general report into that school spending... as I recall he found about 5% (not sure if it was projects or cash) was not wisely spent. " ........ then has changed his stance to "principals are 95% saw the program as providing ongoing value to their school and school community". Make up your mind. Of course school principals are going to say they are happy with the funding. If they object, guess what happens ....... no more funding for you matey boy.

Your attempts at trying to justify the rationale smacks of socialism and not pragmatism as you have so conveniently labelled yourself. Me thinks Whiskers is trolling for bait. Then suddenly you chunder down the road of a legal scope? Not enough rope to hang yourself with? WTF ???

There are that many more points in your voluminous, inective, narrative that reek of BS and spin it should be put down as roadkill.

Last but not least you have devised a further enticement in your post that gives John Howard a spray for the cost of the "Pacific Solution" ........ where the hell is this relevant? Me thinks you are simply trolling again.

It is not possible to have a meaningful debate with someone who has not a grasp on the facts at hand ..... like Peter Garrett had the report for 10 months prior to reading it from the experts warning him that this would happen (deaths, rorting etc) Now if he was a good Minister part of the funding would have gone into TRAINING the corporations to the correct methods OR even better yet, have a task force of experts overseeing the jobs were performed correctly.

Back to the topic RUDD is a FAIL ....... full stop.

Achievement - The ability to have apparently intelligent people troll for replies.

Last post from me on this subject. Getting boring and wasting time.

drsmith said:

Administration is a critical component of any scheme.

If all the responsibility falls on the operators and none on the government as administrators, then why have government in the first place ?

Click to expand...

I see your point, drsmith, but the short answer is that, as far as I can tell, it was not the intention in the administration of the scheme to vary or replace long standing workplace safety law.

Intent is the basis for interpreting new law in particular if some aspect is not expressly stated. The law says that unless there was at least an intent to change existing workplace laws, then it is implied that they are not changed.


Similarly with fraud, but it may be easier to escape a fraud charge, depending on the application detail and a case by case basis.

Regardless of the intention, workplace safety law in this instance could not be effectively policed because of the way the scheme was administered.

I would go further and question the intention given that advice regarding safety was ignored.

trainspotter said:

It is not possible to have a meaningful debate with someone who has not a grasp on the facts at hand ..... like Peter Garrett had the report for 10 months prior to reading it from the experts warning him that this would happen (deaths, rorting etc)

Click to expand...

That was the administritive and political mistake Garrett made, albeit at the behest of Rudd. Hence his linited demotion as opposed to sacking.

Now if he was a good Minister part of the funding would have gone into TRAINING the corporations to the correct methods OR even better yet, have a task force of experts overseeing the jobs were performed correctly.

Click to expand...

BUT, installing insulation in existing homes was not a new concept or work decsription. It had been done millions of times under existing workplace laws.

This is the point. There was already long standing workplace safety laws that said that if you instruct an employee to work around/near electrical infrastructure, you must firstly investigate and if necessary consult an electrician and or at least turn off the electricity supply before doing work.

Certainly more training and policing would have been better, but as I explained above legally, it in no way disolves the responsibility of dodgy operators to ignore long standing practice to at least turn off the electricity.

I understand the electricity was left on so they could use fans and lights on the homes electricity supply to work, rather than say bring their own power supply. Clearly negligence as was not checking their work for current afterwards.

Show me something in the scheme that said to ignore long standing practice and safety laws, trainspotter.

Ignorance is no excuse for incompetence or negligence.

drsmith said:

Regardless of the intention, workplace safety law in this instance could not be effectively policed because of the way the scheme was administered.

I would go further and question the intention given that advice regarding safety was ignored.

Click to expand...

But most trade jobs are not checked by someone else. Just like every tax return is not checked by the tax office. Policing is limited to suspicious behaviour, complaints and an ocassional random audit.

In hindsight it certainly seems wise to have had a requirement that every installer get an electrical certification after completion of each job... but that would not necessairly have saved employees from getting electricuted during the job... and given an already shortage of electricians and likely delay, would it really have stopped dodgy installers?

I agree and said repeatedly, it was an inefficient insulation method and expense of money, but that doesn't absolve the dodgy operators of their legal responsibilities.

I didn't apply for the rebate, so I can't be accused of justifying it or perpetuating it by participating in it, like some.

Ignorance is no excuse for incompetence or negligence.

Whiskers said:

BUT, installing insulation in existing homes was not a new concept or work decsription. It had been done millions of times under existing workplace laws.

This is the point. There was already long standing workplace safety laws that said that if you instruct an employee to work around/near electrical infrastructure, you must firstly investigate and if necessary consult an electrician and or at least turn off the electricity supply before doing work.

.

Click to expand...

All true, the problem is every man and his dog ran out to become an batt installer. You also had guys start up as sole traders and had no experience except for a 2 week course (think it was that long?). So they had no old hands to point out the risks, fresh guys to the industry just don't see dangerous situations. And they would not have been there if the govt didn’t mismanage it to such a degree
So imo the government created a dangerous situation by throwing so much stimulus in such a short period of time. It was all done in a very shoddy manner. The government left huge holes in the scheme to be rorted, and created a very dangerous situation. In all my years I have not seen anything like it (except maybe BER)
All the guys that were in it for years are now facing bankruptcy after the ar$e was torn out of the industry. So no it was very badly managed by the government. It had huge problems and now they are ripping it back out FAIL

Responses for Insultation should be directed here: -

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=553054&highlight=insulation#post553054


:topic

Whiskers said:

Yeah, this is a hell of a mess. While the Howard approach was certainly more effective in stopping illegal arrivals it pushed the boundaries of empathy, compassion and international law.

On the other hand Rudd over-reacted to the compassion side and despite some policy tightening or at least freezing the processing, they really need to do a lot more to stop them from leaving Indonesia.

A simple solution seems to be to flatly refuse to process anyone, or at least give priority to, anyone who applies for political asylum from say our embasy in Indonesia. That would considerably alter the incentive to pay smugglers I would have thought.

Click to expand...

The solution would appear to be zero acceptance of any immigrants who don't apply through the legal channels. They want to come here, either they apply through the legal processes or they miss out.
That way we can't be accused of being anti-immigration or lacking in compassion or whatever. Not that I think we should give a stuff what anyone else thinks - this is our country to run as we see fit, and the rest of the world can shove their opinions up their jumpers.

Whiskers with regard the insulation rebate. When the last Government enacted the vehicle L.P.G rebate the customer had to pay for the conversion then remit the invoice through medicare and take the car in for a vehicle examination before the customer was refunded. From what I understand with the insulation rebate the insulation supplier sent in an invoice and was paid. This led to installers going halves with bogus recipients. Thats the problem with throwing money around, there is a lot of people who will work out how to rort it. The other moral problem is what about all the responsible, enviromentally caring people who payed to put insulation in their own homes and then have to subsidise putting insulation in other peoples houses. This is the problem you have a Government making grandiose statements without taking into consideration the effect on WORKING FAMILIES who are trying to get ahead of their own backs. I hope there are plenty of people with new plasmas that can vote for them. Because NORMAL WORKING FAMILIES get SOD ALL.