Great satire! I thought the author was serious until I read the 'about the author' bit at the bottom where it says that the author taught creative writing. This is indeed a masterpiece of creative writing, creative thinking and astonishing non-sequiturs. Roald Dahl would be proud.

The main thrust of this article basically boils down to this:

1) Tony Abbott was a member of the Howard Government
2) The Howard Government supported the war on Iraq
3) Therefore, Abbott has no right to criticize the current government for causing losses of life.

Unfortunately, this is what passes as reasoned analysis in nearly all of our arts faculties.

What a spiteful woman Jennifer seems to be. I suppose she thinks Peter Garrett should be applauded for his total incompetence.

TA loves the blame game.Never accept responsibility, for anything.. Don't propose a solution, blame someone.
His studious lack of ideas of any substance seems to be a substitute for policy.
I get the impression that he is not unintelligent, but he seems dedicated to portraying himself as a cretin.
Perhaps he has research that indicates holding such a profile will win government.

If there is any cretin here, it's the author of this bit of rubbish. The electioneering appears to have started.

She's a very bad advertisement for academia.

Steady on folks ! Dr Wilson is simply expressing an opinion...she's not committing a crime or a mortal sin here!

Interesting she quotes Obama twice to support her case. That's like the Christian evangelists who quote the Bible to prove their particular case. Pointless because that sort of thing only works if your audience is already on your side in the first place!

Tony Abbott is certainly not a usual politician. He is a street fighter and that maximises his chances of success as opposition leader. And it will do us all a lot of good, including Dr Wilson, if the Rudd government is, at last, being put under pressure. Governments without effective oppositions always go bad.

I rate Tony Abbott highly. It's some of the people on his front bench that worry me.

I am perplexed about about how a well Educated person can be so callous and dismissive about the avoidable Deaths of four young men .
Apparently it's the Big Picture that counts here a few deaths here and there don't matter , Shrill and Panic are the antidote proscribed by the ALP to save everything from the Torch of a CO2 enhanced Hellfire Goebbels up by dubious "Climate Change Professors".

How come this Dr. dismisses the benefits of each State having a Department of Standards if we are not going to use them surely they all should be closed down ? What a ridiculous suggestion !
The point is had the Standards been applied those four young men would have been with us today .
The Mad Pop Singer is guilty of Culpable Manslaughter and no amount of Hype will bring those boys back ,Garrett was the Captain and he must be held responsible .

Dr Jenny Wilson's ultra left posts are also a bit of a joke.

For all her pushing for human rights an accountablility, we find her now apologising for the deaths caused by Garrett's negligence.

The risks clearly laid out in the risk report commissioned by Garrett's team came to pass, but Jenny implies that because he did not kill as many as the defense force in Iraq he is OK.

If politicians are not held responsible for their actions, human rights is a lost cause. Because Jenny percieves Garrett as politically better than Abbott, she is prepared to shed her values when convienient which makes her no better than any other politician.

Yep, and if Garrett is rightfully forced to resign, just wait for all of those supposed balanced academics to point the finger at the howard government for all the ministers that did not resign in regard to what they believed were important issues.

Personally, i think the 'insualtion' episode is one of the worst ever given the deaths involved and other aspects of the policy that needs to be questioned and scrutinised.

If a politician cannot resign over such events, when does one?

I agree with the last few commenters.

Garrett might be able to keep his job if he hadn't been warned of the risks involved. But the fact that he was warned on numerous occasions and only read a major report he commissioned on safety nearly a year after the scheme started shows that he has been negligent and derelict in his duties to properly implement the scheme as best he can.

The fact is that he should have known, and taken appropriate action. The fact that he apparently did not know and did nothing means that he has no excuses.

Garrett must go. But Stephen Conroy should also resign because of his grubby dealings and general incompetence.

Hello!! Are we all reading the same article? Cos I think the author is pointing out Abbott's hypocrisy. I don't get that she's supporting what Garrett's done.
And maybe I didn't notice at the time but how many ministers resigned from the Howard government when they stuffed up?

I'm sorry I missed this. I agree wholeheartedly with this piece. I can not take Abbott seriously. No way was the Rudd Government or Peter Garrett responsible for deaths resulting from the insulation program. I feel incensed at how this was portrayed in the media. Going by the comments here, Abbott appears to be onto a good thing, with so many people willing to jump on the bandwagon and support his ill thought out and irresponsible comments. Either that, or the comments here are from Abbott's inner circle of supporters, seeking to create an impression that people out there take him seriously. The ballot box will be the judge of whether Abbott has estimated voters capacity of moral and independent thought correctly. Having taken an interest in how much Abbott can get away with (as in, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time) I've been amassing a small collection of jokes and insightful pieces that indicates otherwise.

Does Abbott even want to be taken seriously?

Is he, in fact, the 'Houellebecq' of parliament?

Consider, who does he call when lost in the outback?

Answer: His Press Secretary.

Not credible, not serious.

Those that think that Tony Abbot's (TA) outspoken policies are a joke must be confounded by the recent swing in the polls.

Malcom Turnbull's reasoned approach failed to diffentiate the coalition policies sufficiently from Labor which is effectively handing the next election to the incumbents.

There is an old saying that if you cannot win, you must make your opponent lose.

As Rudd did in 2007 his policies were photocopies of the coalitions with the exception of work choices, like the choice between two nearly identical cars one of which has a cool CD player.

TA is differentiating the coalition on the issues that the majority has misgivings:
- Climate change,
- Illegal immigration,
- The budget deficit.

Finally as a character he is pushing a clean cut straight talking image as against the diplomatic, information poor, verbiage of KR.

On top of which he is hammering Labor on its broken promises (such as the private health rebate, which fits labors political aims, but for such a small return alienates many of the higher income supporters he might of had.)

The insulation program was just icing on the cake.

And of course, "Tony's taking the polls very seriously"...

"No way was the Rudd Government or Peter Garrett responsible for deaths resulting from the insulation program"

That's an interesting comment given that Garrett was warned of the safety risks on numerous occasions and did nothing. Also, if no politician is responsible, why did the PM take full responsibility.

And if Abbott takes opinion polls seriously, then perhaps you should also, as there's a possibility he will be the next PM.

To AJFA

It is an unfortunate position that most governments find themselves in, to be blamed for whatever happens to go wrong. It is unfair to expect governments to be directly responsible for the actions of crooks and idiots.

As I understand it, and I know people who were doing the insulation work legally, ethically and responsibly, there were adequate guidelines in place to ensure that safe working conditions could be met. The problems resulted from those who ignored the guidelines and training and acted illegally and unethically, putting lives at risk. In other areas of work there is no expectation (is there?) that governments be held directly responsible for illegal and unethical practices. As I see it, due care was taken in how the program was set up.

Rudd's mea culpa response reflects the current political game of seeking to woo the electorate at all costs, given how much weight people place on positive media coverage, a game which Tony Abbott plays no less assiduously than Rudd.

Wal,
good on you mate

the first word of truth on this subject

JMCC

And here I was thinking the subject was Tony Abbott....

I'm wondering rather whether JMCC is in the right forum.

I have been discussing the media furore of vindictiveness towards Garrett and the Rudd Government that Abbott fanned up over the insulation program, about which Jennifer Wilson writes - as part of her questioning as to whether anyone can really take Abbott seriously.

A related issue, which spills over into another article by Jennifer Wilson, and which I have also touched on above, is Rudd's politics of contrition in response to the media furore fanned up by Abbott.

[Interesting to note that in my personal experience over a relatively long life, I have found vindictiveness to be a particular trait of those who share Abbott's religious faith and who by virtue of this one fact, tend to be the kind of marriage partners and work colleagues that I have learned to avoid. My personal view is that vindictiveness and finger pointing are destructive and entirely unhelpful traits in all walks of life, including in politics.]

The argument that because the deaths were as a result of shonky operators the government bears no responsibility is disingenuous.

The government should have forseen that dodgy businesses would move straight in. What else do you expect when the government is throwing billions around at a small industry?

Furthermore, the government was warned on many occasions that there were safety concerns, yet Minister Garrett did nothing.

Of course, the whole insulation scheme was a mistake from the beginning. It was a cynical attempt to get the votes of greenies and tradies simultaneously. Anyone who doubts that the stimulus was at the heart of Rudd's reelection strategy does not understand how scheming and cunning politicians are, particularly the PM.

AJFA

Politely suggest you start topic on Rudd, Garrett and the insulation fiasco.

Unless you are drawing all your posts towards a brilliant summation of Tony Abbott, I (and others) think you are on the wrong thread.

I made an incorrect reference. I meant to refer to AJFA not JMCC. Apologies to JMCC!

There is a tenuous link to the article in what AJFA says. By pointing the finger at the government there might just be a slim chance that some who read AJFAs comments might come to see Abbott as wearing a halo, instead of hilarious clown-suit I see; although I doubt it.

The insulation scheme was a bold and inspired move that helped Australia endure the Global Financial Crisis more successfully than any other country.

It is tragic that this program was chopped and is to be watered down. It was doing a lot of good, which has been lost in the media debate. Being a new and untried program it would be foolhardy to expect no problems.

If only it were so easy to get government programs "right" first go. It is so easy for those in the Opposition to sling mud; much harder for them to come up with constructive alternatives.

This gets back to the point I was making earlier, about the vindictiveness and finger pointing Abbott engages in being destructive and unhelpful. Tony's halo has come at a high cost, in this case to the whole country. Is this the sort of leader Australia needs?

Wal,

Your defence of the scheme does make it obvious that you are a supporter of the government.

However, four deaths and nearly 90 house fires is not acceptable, no matter how much you try and avoid this fact.

Furthermore, your claim that the programme was highly beneficial is contradicted by Henry Ergas, who concluded that "The result is some improvement in comfort, but a negative return on investment".

You should read the full article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/energy-efficientbenefit-deficient/story-e6frg6zo-1225834522960

Your claim that Abbott is putting his own interests above those of the country by attacking the insulation scheme is also ill-founded. A democratic society benefits from having criticisms of poorly implemented government schemes, even if it upsets supporters of those governments such as yourself.

Well AJFA, to clarify: I am not aligned unthinkingly as a supporter of the government and against the opposition. Hence no good reason for you to read my comments as such.

My opinions of Tony Abbott do not stem from allegiance to a particular "side" of politics, rather I have been reflecting upon what I have observed, within the context of this article.

My preference is for honest politicians, sadly these days a contradiction in terms.

Tony Abbott is perhaps (and laughably so) paying too much attention to how things are done in the US; breaking new ground here in courting media attention. Some voters may "buy it", as in the US, however I won't.

Cretin or not, TA appears to have seriously misread the mood of the electorate on health :-)

Wal,

If you prefer honest politicians, I don't understand why you dislike Abbott more than KRudd. Despite his social conservativism, Abbott is at least a lot more honest and genuine than our Prime Minister. Unlike most politicians, he is not afraid to speak his mind, hence why he is often accused of putting his foot in his mouth.

Abbott did exagerate when he said that Garrett was guilty of industrial manslaughter. But politicians often exaggerate, so I don't know why Abbott has been singled out. KRudd meanwhile has declared war on inflation, unemployment and recession, as well as claimed that Garrett was "a first class minister" and saying that safety was his no1 priority before demoting Garrett and admitting that his government has not performed and apologising for it on national TV.

Personally, I find it more easy to take Abbott seriously than Rudd.

Wal,

Your uncritical support of all labor policies, and stone throwing at Abbott and his policies pegs your alignment deep within the labor camp, irrespective of whether you carry a party card or not.

The liberal party has been chasing health reform for some time, but has met stuborn resistance from the state labor governments. Some states have given Rudd conditional acceptance, but the devil is in the detail.

The Liberal objection to Rudd's plan is not that health needs reform, but that the plan is simply to change the funding arrangements. They question whether it will result in any changes to service delivery, what this will mean to small rural hospitals, and whether getting acceptance from the states means the taxpayer funding the hospitals by more than they recover from the states. (which means higher taxes).

Not having seen any detail on the plan I can't comment, but I think it is a step in the right direction.

That a person is known for "speaking their mind" is no recommendation.
What's on the person's mind may well be completely wrong.
Those who applaud Mr Abbott for "speaking his mind" and being "a straight talker" are simply having their own prejudices reinforced.
Don't be in any doubt that every word spoken by Mr Abbott is carefully considered and then, spoken for a calculated effect.
He is, after all, an intelligent, self-serving, highly experienced politician, using all of the means at his disposal to persuade people of the rightness of his case.
A very sophisticated individual indeed.
There is nothing homespun or folksy about this man.

I agree with ocm on Abbott. He's certainly put the wind up Rudd. I wonder though, has this fight been in the best interests of this country.

Shadow Minister you misread me. My concern about Liberal policies stems from erosion of the welfare state such that it no longer provides a safety net for the genuinely disadvantaged. I doubt that when Liberals speak of health reform, they mean improvements in public provision. I would not like to see Medicare privatised. I would not like to see a return to Work Choices; or work for the dole, a cruel way to treat people who are already demoralised.

Having one body responsible for the funding will be an improvement on the current arrangements. I would also like to see more than lip service to the social determinants of health and less big money spent on expensive technology and pharmaceuticals for health problems that are largely preventable.

AJFA - I'm not singling out Abbott. The discussion is about Abbott. I agree and take offense that Abbott went overboard about the insulation program. In doing this some good people got hurt. Was this a good thing for the country? I disagree with the report by Ergas. He seems to have gone overboard to find flimsy reasons to discredit the program, causing me to question where he's coming from.

I have enjoyed observing Tony Abbott's rise from an inauspicious beginning. It's hard being a politician and there are many casualties. If there's an honest streak that causes Abbott to speak his mind, as ocm says this is not always wise and Tony may be better off taking advice. I wonder though, what comes first for him, his own success and popularity or the well being of this country.

When I said I prefer honest politicians it was hypothetical and I do not expect it to be realised. If anything reassures me about the future of this country it is that governments have access to expert advice and on occasions they take it.

Wal,

A number of points in response:

1) It is a fact that the welfare state expanded dramatically under the Howard government, so your concerns about a welfare safety net being eroded under the previous government are misplaced.

2) Work for the dole is a unique opportunity for the long-term unemployed, who struggle to find work to get the skills and experience necessary to make it easier for them to find real work.

3) Noone from the major parties has ever suggested Medicare should be privatised.

4) Ergas has produced a cost-benefit analysis of the pink batts programme. That's how economists evaluate things. He therefore has not "gone overboard to find flimsy reasons to discredit the program".

5) ocm seems to be saying that nothing Abbott says is genuinely spontaneous or genuine. I disagree with him. Consider Abbott's recent remarks on homosexuality which have drawn controversy, or his remarks at the last federal election concerning Bernie Banton. I don't see how anyone can believe these remarks have been planned and calculated in advance.

6) Finally, I cannot understand why you seem to believe that one or two instances of hyperbole by Tony Abbott have been more detrimental to this nation than the pink batts scheme. That appears to be your attitude given that you emphasise the former and downplay the latter.

AJFA

The cost benefit analysis relies on an assumption that use of energy will decrease in the shorter term and that as people get used to the ambient temperature, their use will go up again. That certainly is to do with the behaviour of people, not a shortcoming of the program.

It would be good to see an analysis of fires, accidents and deaths per job done, for the same work prior to the program's commencing. My expectation is that the rates would be comparable - that is, the program was not at fault.

There is an interesting discussion on insulation in the discussion forum here - perhaps you know where to look. It indicates that the ordinary man in the street is seeing through what has gone down in the media about the insulation program. Many would have known people involved or had the insulation done, given the scale. I feel that how it has been portrayed was a complete disgrace and Abbott was into it right up to his big floppies.

Yes, there might have been ways to spend the money better, such as installing it in public housing properties via registered contractors, as suggested there. Given the scale of the program though, it's not surprising there were problems just as there are in all aspects of the building trade.

Another great joke on Abbott today here, Malice in Blunderland. :-)

Wal,

In a world where human nature is not perfect, government policy has to take human actions into account.

A lot of people say communism failed because human nature is imperfect. Are you suggesting that it should be introduced regardless? Or perhaps we ought to abolish the criminal law, since it's only because of bad human behaviour that it is breached.

These are logical extensions of your proposition that its OK for human behaviour not to be taken into account.

"It would be good to see an analysis of fires, accidents and deaths per job done, for the same work prior to the program's commencing. My expectation is that the rates would be comparable - that is, the program was not at fault."

You have no evidence to support this assertion. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the Prime Minister, who admits the scheme was a disaster. Again, 4 deaths and nearly 90 housefires is unacceptable. It disturbs me that you seem to always try and dismiss the deaths and housefires as no big deal.

AJFA

I'm happy to discuss these issues, however above you have erroneously reinterpreted and extrapolated from what I have said, completely changing the meaning. While your arguments appear superficially plausible and logical they are irrelevant to the discussion.

I take as a given that the deaths were tragic and preferably avoided and I had moved on from that.

The point I was making is that there was nothing peculiar to the insulation program that contributed to these deaths although the program has been widely held responsible, in the media, and many gullible and unthinking people have believed this.

Needless deaths that are no less tragic have occurred and will continue to occur in the future in similar areas of work however the media debate about the insulation program was played out as if the four deaths were peculiar to that program; as if that kind of death never happens when of course it does, it just doesn't attract the same media attention.

Appropriate guidelines and safeguards were provided to installers under the insulation program, that if followed ensured safe working conditions. I am aware of one such reputable business that was left up in the air when the program was suddenly chopped without notice, all to no good end compared to the good the program had been doing for people who had been having difficulty finding work. To me the only thing achieved by the media spectacle and the subsequent chopping this program was calculated and political, on both sides of government.

You have positioned yourself and Abbott on the moral high ground while what I see is the immorality of politicians using these tragic deaths and the pain of grieving relatives for political point scoring in the media.

For this and other reasons, as outlined by Jennifer Wilson here, I am unable to take Tony Abbott seriously, nor do I see any hope for his redemption.

Wal

Going by Tony Epis piece in the SMH today - The adventures of Tony the unbelievable - Jennifer Wilson, me and some others here are not the only ones around who regard Tony Abbott's performance to date as farcical.

Wal,

There was in fact something peculiar to the insulation programme. As you yourself say, such a huge expansion of the industry was bound the generate problems. With new players emerging to swallow government cash and existing firms recruiting young, inexperienced and barely trained workers in order to keep up with demand, what occurred was foreseeable.

Hence why Garrett was warned, and did nothing. You seem to imply the government is blameless, in spite of all the facts which point to the opposite conclusion.

Hence why I disagree with your statement that "My expectation is that the rates would be comparable - that is, the program was not at fault.".

Jan,

I wasn't able to locate the article you referred to. But for me, taking Rudd seriously is harder, for the reasons I have already cited here.

AJFA

From what I heard on the radio this morning, Garrett received advice 6 months ago; sought to tighten the program, and was overridden by Rudd. Hence Rudd's apology was more than for the media or to save face. He appears to have been directly at fault for not agreeing to tighten the program.

I regret that the program was chopped without ceremony. This was a poor response. I would have preferred for it to have been tightened. It should and could have been tightened when Garrett first raised the issue. I was not aware of any deaths at that time. They may have come later. Had appropriate and timely action been taken they may have been averted although in hindsight one can not know this for sure.

There's a lot of fuss being made about the foil insulation at present although that was also used before the program so can't be seen as a direct result. We insulated a home we owned once with the foil - did it ourselves - and having heard of the problems I had remarked that I was glad no-one was electrocuted and that we'd had no fires.

The insulation we used was silver batts not stapled down. The stapling seems to have been causing the problems and I'm not sure why stapling was necessary unless this was just flat sheets. Indirectly this may have been a result of the program, in that there was much pressure on supply and some people were using whatever insulation they could get.

I still feel that the media have been exaggerating the problem with the insulation program and that when the inspections are done the problems will be found to be far less than has been estimated or portrayed. There's been so much hysteria over this program and so many wild accusations made that I can't take much of what is said about it seriously. This hysteria was carrying on on talk back radio long before Abbott blew the whistle. Talk back radio hosts are not well known for either accuracy of reporting or ethical behaviour.

Wal

AJFA

I respect your opinion. There have been some interesting report on these issues lately, such as:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/12/2843624.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/we-cant-blame-garrett-for-batts-bungle-20100308-pqs7.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/09/2841206.htm

Also a few others I can't locate right now. The media have been having a field day.

The piece by Michael Epis is here:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/episodes/the-adventures-of-tony-the-unbelievable/20100310-pz28.html

Cheers, Jan

Another good article by Ben Probje who shares my sentiments; good because, well, because it's satirical and funny; although apparently the funny side has escaped Tony:

"then there’s the matter of metal clips used to fasten insulation. He took far too long to ban these and scrutiny of the official regulations reveals that at no point did the Government make it clear to installers that metal can potentially conduct electricity. Without this vital piece of technical information, they were flying blind — it’s like asking someone to fly a plane without warning them that at some point they will find themselves airborne. You see how the dreadful errors of omission keep mounting."

Jan

Story is here: http://newmatilda.com/2010/02/24/beware-shonky-operator

Wal,

In terms of Garrett's advice, he received multiple warnings. The warnings from Minister Ellison were given before the programme began, and Garrett admits he didn't read their report until about a week before the scandal broke out.

Whether or not the media has exagerated is yet to be demonstrated. Statistics of 4 deaths, nearly 90 house fires and thousands of homes needing their insulation fixed or replaced seem to speak for themselves.

Jan,

I agree that Abbott's paid maternity leave scheme was wild and is very bad policy. It may be that my views on Abbott are now a little closer to yours, given that I have lost some respect for him since he does not appear to have consulted with anyone or done any serious thinking before announcing the parental leave policy.

However, Ben Probje is not making a serious argument. No-one has suggested that the Government should have "it clear to installers that metal can potentially conduct electricity". The question is why it rolled out a scheme that it knew or ought to have known had serious safety risks.