Not saying
THE Rudd government is refusing to release the results of 57,000 safety inspections of homes insulated under its botched $2.45 billion program.
Assistant Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said he would not say how many homes had been found to have serious safety issues that could have caused fires or electrocutions, nor reveal how many had been found to have quality issues that meant the insulation was not effective.
“The government will not be providing a running commentary on inspections results,” Mr Combet told The Australian.Come on guys – release the figures in time for the Newspoll ring around
Facebook
Twitter
Despite operating as the unofficial mouthpiece of the Coalition on BER, the Fart of the Nation grudingly prints something approaching the facts – http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/schools-watch/ber-is-a-success-inquiry-chief-brad-orgill-says/story-fn56ulhe-1225881556537
As for the home insulation scheme, this from the ABC – http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/18/2931190.htm
Hidden in the story is the fact that 8% of installations inspected were a possible fire risk. This means that 92% were OK.
Given that the dodgy installations – all 8% of them – were the product of shonks, it’s pretty clear that this is also an orchestrated campaign.
Funny, isn’t it, that allegations of bias on this blog disappear when the “news” favours the right! The old maxim always emerges – never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
9905371 you are probably lucky that your home is not one of the 1200 found to be a fire risk in the original 15000. Perhaps if we extrapolate and assume, as most polls do, that the numbers are sufficient to draw a conclusion from, then 8 percent of 61000 would be um…..4880 homes that pose a fire risk. I hope your home is still not in the at risk group. Working the numbers a little that would mean that if your home was insulated under this scheme then you would have about 7 times the risk of losing your home and possibly your family than you would of being killed in Vietnam as an Australian serviceman/woman.
“In many cases it has clearly been successful in delivering value for money. Has it delivered value for money in every case? No, I doubt that.”
Mr Orgill did not say why NSW public schools are paying roughly double for BER school buildings compared with Catholic and independent schools.
Note that he did not say, ‘in the majority of cases’ or ‘in most cases’ – so it largely comes down to what number defines ‘many’ (I’d be happy to accept 1 or 200 = ‘many’, but by that definition, the program is an utter failure) and he had dodged the obvious, why is it that private schools got much better value than the public schools (and are the private schools considered the ‘many’ that got good value).
Either way, where was the Governmental oversight?
Re the insulation fiasco –
So you feel that employing shonks was a competent move and that having 8% of the inspected homes fail was acceptable?
Again, where was the Governmental oversight?
Keep spinning, but nobody is listening to Labor any more, the brand has been destroyed for another 10 years – they saw it in Penrith and it is coming on a federal level.
“So you feel that employing shonks was a competent move and that having 8% of the inspected homes fail was acceptable?”
They weren’t employed – they were contracted. If there was any justice they’d be behind bars.
In most endeavours, a 98% success rate is considered acceptable.
In this, as in the GFC, the problem is unbridled greed. If they can’t eat it, drink it or f**k it, it doesn’t compute.
We’ve learnt well from our “friends” across the Pacific.
“the brand?” – since when was national governance about marketing?
There are some principles that can’t be bought and sold.
That’s why I vote Green – both major parties have sold out to the focus groups and the media circus.
And all the schools I visit are better off – irrespective of the outcome of the next Federal poll, that won’t change.
Now, if only we had a party with the guts to nationalise the mining industry……
“9905371 you are probably lucky”
Before I let any tradesman near my home, I’d make sure he was competent. If someone put my family at risk I’d blame that someone – not the Federal government. Whatever happened to the Conservative meme of “individual responsibility”?
Firstly, if you were able to assess someones competency in the trades you wouldn’t need to have them do the job. If you gave them the job and you had assessed their ability to do it correctly then youand nobody else would have to accept responsibility for any risk your family faced.
The average person has a right to expect that a system put in place by the Govt of the day is handled competently, but we are fast learning that that expectation is assumed too easily in the case of this current Govt. Your acceptance of a 92% “yay” for these installations when peoples’ lives and property are at risk indicates to me that you should be employed by krudd to stand in the background nodding at his television interviews.
You may vote Green but you certainly grew up stained permanently with the red of your early years under the influence of a parent clearly one eyed about Labor. (Do not read into that statement that I am having a go at Dad. I merely suggest that your views are clearly those of a “true believer”, no matter what denials you offer up as a pretence that you do not have the Labor left ideology fixed firmly in your thought processes.) Unlike others that may wish to dally with your incessant tripe I learned a long time ago that you cannot win an arguement or a debate, even when 100 percent correct, with a child, a woman or a fool. Any one spending time in communication with you would probably be more productive talking to a child a woman or a fool.
“Any one spending time in communication with you would probably be more productive talking to a child a woman or a fool”
Interesting attitude – women aren’t able to hold an argument? I doubt too many of the fairer sex would agree with you.
Women can vote these days, you know. Must be why Labor governments get elected – females being incapable of seeing the world with the stark black and white clarity revealed by your thought processes.
See what I mean? The “hidden meaning” is that an arguement with someone with a totally different understanding of logic is a pointless exercise. Most people would have picked up on that, but you go off at a tangent and suggest that I believe that women cannot hold an arguement. That is definitely not the case as most women can argue fervently even when not totally in the right. The final message was that even in these cases that communication with you will produce even fewer results. I rest my case.
“I rest my case” – so you should – it’s buggered.
You don’t have a case – you spent most of your time labelling and abusing me because I have a different opinion, and then put down 50% of the population into the bargain.
The only pont you made was – “The average person has a right to expect that a system put in place by the Govt of the day is handled competently”.
Absolutely, but the people actually doing the work (and ripping off both the taxpayer) were not the government. They were the “entrepreneurs” with an eye only on a quick and easy quid. This culture, so readily supported by market fundamentalists on the right, has been largely responsible for the GFC. Now we have the multinational miners, driven by the same mantra, trying to do over the Australian taxpayer. For most of my working life, beause I was in the top bracket, I paid more tax than these cowboys.
My heart bleeds for them.
Booby, Booby, Booby, read the context and not what you believe to be between the lines. You are constantly looking over your shoulder. Wait until I pat you on the back looking for a soft spot to drive in the knife and then you will know where it is coming from. Your logic is astounding for an “educated” man. As I said one cannot successfully argue with a child, a woman or a fool or 1735099 even when one is totally correct.
I’m back with a couple of queries….
“The only pont you made was….” Do you speak a combination of French and English or did you make a mistake there?
“(and ripping off both the taxpayer)” and what or whom?
“My heart bleeds for them”…didn’t I mention somewhere that you were prone to that and you came back with something like “doesn’t compute” because the phraseology is an Americanism or similar?
Almost there….if you have been in the top bracket all your working life and as you claim paid more tax than “these cowboys” then you have not been as “clever” as you would believe. You have employed the wrong accountant or attempted to complete your own tax returns. If the latter is true obviously arithmetic is not your forte.
And lastly….. Do you understand the term “buggered”? If you do, I assume that unlike me who had to read up on it, that you have first hand knowledge.
“If the latter is true obviously arithmetic is not your forte”
No – I’m just not into tax dodging – a dollar here or there really never has been an issue for me. You can’t take it with you.
There’s a difference the term “bleeding heart” and “my heart bleeds”, particularly in terms of the origin of the first one and its pejorative use.
As for “buggered”- if you had to read up on its meaning, you either don’t understand colloquial English, or you’re trying to be funny. You’ve failed.
Do you really want to go down this path again?
“They weren’t employed – they were contracted.”
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861767118/employ.html
Definition:
1. give paid work to somebody: to hire somebody to work in exchange for money
2. keep somebody busy: to keep somebody occupied doing something
3. use something: to make use of something
as noted above, the fact that they were on contract does not mean that they were not employed.
why do you feel the need to invent your own definitions, is the english language not sufficient for you?
“If there was any justice they’d be behind bars.”
Yes, so would the ones who did the shonky work.
“In most endeavours, a 98% success rate is considered acceptable.”
Maybe, but since, as you note above, they had at least an 8% failure rate, they didn’t achieve a 98% success rate did they? and lets face it, we are not talking about a risky high tech aerospace application, we are talking about insulating a roofspace, you would expect a 99.99% success rate at putting some batts in a roofspace without destroying the building or killing anyone.
If grownups were in charge of the program there would have been credible certification requirements and a post installation inspection regime.
Only an idiot believes that political parties are not about marketing, which explains your opinion and only a total fool thinks that the greens are any better than either of the big parties.
re schools being ‘better off’, yes (except for the ones that have had buildings installed that don’t meet safety codes), but then they’d all have been ‘better off’ if they had got a single bubbler each and paid 6 billion dollars for each of them. the issue is value for money spent and only the utterly witless don’t see it.
Yes, lets nationalise mining, nationalising major industries is working so well in Venuzeula.
“keep somebody busy: to keep somebody occupied doing something”
Strange definition. Based on that all teachers are employers. Sorry, you’ll have to organise something that makes sense.
“Yes, lets nationalise mining, nationalising major industries is working so well in Venuzeula”.
Works OK for the Chinese – and for us as a direct consequence. Your problem is not the outcome, but the ideology.
1990537, you seem to display a lot of envy when discussing people who are clever enough to create wealth even though you indicate otherwise. Probably a similarity with your denials of supporting Labor because you vote GREEN.
Re “buggered”
I read up on it as a very young boy checking out the dictionary meaning of rude words and I don’t go much on slang or colloquial terminology. I try to avoid the kind of foul language that many educated people now believe to be acceptable in mixed company.
Mind you in the footy club rooms, the barracks and when shaken by fear I do accept the usage. My comment was not intended to invoke humour and going by the return comment you know that only too well.