Unfortunately, this piece is rendered less than useful by virtue of the fact that the majority of Australia's print media fail to operate in a professionally ethical way.

The evidence is now overwhelming that the Murdoch corporation is run by liars who employ lying executives to manage teams of liars to distort events significantly and even fabricate 'news' when it suits them.

Why no acknowledgment of this reality?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12286

Alan,

unfortunately for you, the article focuses on SMH articles, so perhaps you would want to think a bit harder before you make such a ridiculous comment.

In any case, I do not agree with your sentiment: i think the Murdoch journalists do a good enough job in reporting the news. With our article, it is the news info we rely on rather than opinion pieces.

Chris,

Yes, you state that you have looked at the SMH, and clearly you have.

But then you conclude with this: "And was the demotion of Garrett under Rudd sufficient reparation for the home insulation debacle?"

What home insulation debacle, Chris? Is there any evidence for anything amiss apart from in the rabid Murdoch media?

Economists around the world still marvel at this aspect of the stimulus package, including Nobel Prize winner Prof Joseph Stiglitz from the USA:

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz128/English

Another researcher impressed with the economic impact, the environmental effects and the remarkable occupational health and safety record of the scheme is Prof Rodney Tiffin:

http://inside.org.au/a-mess-a-shambles-a-disaster/

He also reflects on the way the Australian media misrepresented the scheme from the outset.

A detailed study of the safety and the house fire outcomes was done by the CSIRO. Easily googled.

Further analysis of the whole sorry media saga, including revelations on the house fires, is here:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2011/04/24/the-csiro-gets-hip-to-debunking-media-hysteria/

“The CSIRO last week released what was effectively a statistical analysis of the reality surrounding large parts of the infamous Home Insulation Program – or for those of you not familiar with this particular policy, you may have heard about it via it’s common alternative name in the mainstream media, the “OMG, PETER GARRETT IS BURNING DOWN OUR F#%KING HOUSES!” policy.

“As we here have long known and talked about, the reality of the Home Insulation Program was always vastly different to its hysterical media portrayal – driven as it was by naive and innumerate journalists looking for easy sensational headlines, and partisan hacks prostituting their cheap wares before a gullible public.” (end of quote)

So what evidence do you have of the "home insulation debacle", Chris. That will clarify whether my comment was ridiculous or not.

The article linked made careful explicit distinction between opinion and reportage. Refer para 3. So please don't imagine I'm confusing the two.

And a question, finally, Chris: Who was the second Rudd minister forced to resign?

Well Alan, you can appreciate we live in a democracy. We are all free to form our own opinion.

As for the HIP, I also produced an academic article on it (Public Policy). i also note a recent HIP article in the Aust journal of Public adminsistration also backed my findings.

I argue that the HIP was a poor policy, an opinion that I think most Aust's agree with. I know even Labor ministers also came to that conclusion.

As for Rod and others, they are entitled to their opinion; I do not agree with them.

Hi again Chris,

Agree entirely we are free to form opinions. Fortunately this is not at issue in Australia.

Australia’s problem is that analysts purporting to present objective reality routinely falsify the data. Or make assertions not supported by the facts.

Much of Australia's media is hard at work urging people continually to believe things that are not true, and then have them pass those false beliefs along to others.

Your piece, above, appears superficially objective. You claim to have “explored this question through a focus on Australian government ministers”.

But you also make assertions which the data disproves. Including parroting the Murdoch media’s mantra of “the home insulation debacle”.

What debacle, Chris? Environmentalists hailed this as an extraordinary effort which will generate savings – to building owners and the planet – for up to 150 years. Economists lauded it as the centrepiece of the world’s most effective Keynesian intervention. OH&S professionals marvelled at the way a vast scheme belted out so rapidly resulted in such a dramatic drop in the number of deaths and injuries. The formal audits were positive overall.

Australia now clearly has the best economic performance in the Western world. Governments here in Europe and around the world dearly wish they had implemented the exact same insulation program.

Most critiques of the HIP - including the AJPA one - simply assume as proven the falsehoods concocted and repeated endlessly by Australia's media of "deleterious safety consequences" and "fiscally wasteful management".

If there is any actual evidence to validate these mendacious assumptions, it is yet to appear. Happy to pursue any links on this, Chris.

You also assert, “We do not argue that ministers are any more or less corrupt …”

Why not? Your own data shows that during the Howard years 10 ministers were forced to resign for breaches of responsibility and another four clearly should have. Since then, the number is one. (Unless there is another, besides Joel Fitzgibbon.)

Can you see how those who look at this objectively conclude there actually has been a dramatic lessening since 2007?

Thanks, Chris.
Cheers, AA

Alan, we consider Rudd to be a forced resignation.

As for HIP, I think the press did a pretty good job. Put it this way, the Rudd govt felt compelled to address the concerns raised by the press.

As for my opinion of the HIP, I formed a view that any policy that wastes a third of its resources (many hundreds of millions), ingores key advice from key players in terms of consultation towards safety, destroys long established Home insulations businesses, allows some criminals to benefit from the scheme, pays out entire rebate with consumers hvaing little need or desire to check or question quality, is indeed a policy disgrace.

Maybe i am a poor scholar, but i will let others judge that. i merely do my best in accordance to my ability.

In the meantime, I will try and call a spade a spade, and i dont really care what supposed big names or insitutions say, although i will take their analysis on board.

As for the Howard govt, sure there may have been some dodgy ministerial performances, but just wait till I publish a summary of NSW Labor which will make the Howard govt look like angels in relative terms.

Hi again Chris,

Thanks for the responses.

Why did you count Rudd as a forced resignation? He freely chose a leadership challenge knowing in advance he was choosing a career change – either to become PM or backbencher. No?

It had nothing to do with ministerial accountability which you claim to be the subject of this piece.

Did you also count Keating in June 1991 as a forced resignation? Did you count the other ministers over the years who retired to the backbench in similar circumstances – unrelated to actual ministerial performance?

Regarding your opinion of the HIP, Chris, I would agree with you wholeheartedly if it was indeed a program that “wastes a third of its resources, ignores key advice from key players in terms of consultation towards safety, destroys long established Home insulations businesses, allows some criminals to benefit from the scheme, pays out entire rebate with consumers having little need or desire to check or question quality …”

That is a neat summary of most of the false claims presented continually by the Murdoch media. But actual investigations – by Prof Stiglitz, Prof Tiffin, the CSIRO, Possum Comitatus and others – show these are without factual basis. They are all News Limited concoctions.

Please indicate the independent research which validates any of your assertions, Chris. I have sought these for some years now, and found none. Just mindless repetition of the established lies.

We can then proceed with the other important questions arising.
Thanks, Chris.
Cheers, AA

Alan,

Yes, i can refer to my own work which I feel more than adequately counters the work you refer to.

You should stop hero worshipping false prophets as if the title professor gives you some sort of infallability, read the documents from the Senate inquiry, and then make your own mind up.

Unlike you, i dont give a damn what some supposed professor says; i make my own mind up from my own research.

And let us not forget what Labor ministers said abotu the HIP, although i am sure even their comments will not be good enough for you with your with your own self-confidence about what truth is. You know everything and all the Murdoch newspaper journalists are useless.

During July 2010, the Labor Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, told Fairfax Radio that the HIP had “been terrible. There’s no beating around the bush about it” (Editorial 2010j).

Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who had replaced Rudd as leader on 24 June 2010, stated during the 2010 election campaign that “the insulation scheme was an absolute mess” (Karvelas and Franklin 2010).

I rest my case. Take it up with Gillard and Macklin.

Wow.
Someone is getting a butt kicking. Not sure if it is deserved, though. Perhaps we shall see.
Chris Lewis and Keith Dowding, who are the 10 forced resignations during the Howard period, please? Just a list of surnames will do.
This will help to resolve some of the questions I also have about your methodology and conclusions.

WOW

There it is again.

It doesn't happen every time but often enough to make it noteworthy.
Whenever Alan Austin is in a bind Sunflower appears. Its amazing.

Hi Chris,

Thanks for this. But you are doing it again.

We request links to independent research to validate your assertions which are, on the face of it, refuted by Stiglitz, Tiffin, the CSIRO, Comitatus and others.

And you say “i can refer to my own work which I feel more than adequately counters the work you refer to.”

Hmmm. Not really, Chris. When has that ever worked for anyone before?

Your ‘own work’ is simply a cut-and-paste of the Murdoch fabrications. No?

Has your ‘research’ revealed anything not already run in a newspaper?

Yes, I have read the documents from the Senate inquiry and other independent authorities.

They all support Comitatus’s conclusions, not yours: “Ultimately, the HIP – as we’ve stated from the beginning, regularly, using publically available data at the time – was much safer in terms of fire rates than what preceded it. Now, however, we know that it was safer over both the short term as well as the longer term.

“There’s plenty that could be said about the widespread and pathetic excuse for journalism that was involved in the coverage ...

“Much of News Ltd – particularly that sh+t sheet The Australian – not to mention the entertainers pretending to be informed commentators that live under the bridges of talkback radio, had their heads firmly embedded up their own sphincters.”

Chris, you also seem to be using another Murdoch trick by quoting an answer from Minister Jenny Macklin without the question.

“It has been terrible. There's no beating around the bush about it.”

But what was the question, Chris? What was terrible? This is fairly important.

Was it, “What do you read of the public’s mood regarding the scheme?”
Or was it, “What do you think of the media coverage?”
Or something else?

The actual wording of the question is critical. So please provide a link to the audio.

Similarly, the quote from Julia Gillard. Please show the link to the specific question as well the answer. Or at least the sentences before and after.

Thanks, Chris.
Cheers, AA

Alan, as I predicted, not even Labor figures bagging the HIP would convince you. You obviously know it all.

Here is an article from the SMH, also bagging the HIP, although again i am sure you have 'the' answer.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/no-insulation-for-carelessness-20120221-1tlok.html

why dont you write a piece explaining how good the HIP is, and let the reasders respond to you.

I will keep on working and keep getting published, what about you?

Hi again Chris,

Yes and no. Labor figures bagging the HIP would certainly be of relevance. Just need the actual questions and answers – unedited. Do you have them? Don’t think this is asking too much.

No, I have no need to write anything further about the HIP. The work of Stiglitz, Tiffin, Comitatus, the CSIRO and others seems satisfactory.

The fact that you haven’t pointed to any actual research which refutes their findings – as in analysis of rates of death, injury or damage, environmental impact, savings to households, fiscal impact – suggests there isn't any. Correct?

Yes, I read the SMH editorial and associated reportage at the time. The critiques of the SMH’s false assumptions were valid then and still are. Although at least the SMH acknowledges the success overall of the stimulus programs.

Anyway, I’m happy to leave the HIP unless you have further relevant data.

Would like to address the substantive matter in your piece. Again, Chris, it looks like you have reached false conclusions because the basic data is inadequate.

So could you please address the earlier questions:

1. Re: “We do not argue that ministers are any more or less corrupt …”

Why not? During the Howard years 10 ministers were forced to resign for breaches of responsibility and another four clearly should have. Since then, the number is one. (Unless we count Kevin Rudd.)

Can you see how those who look at this objectively conclude there has been a dramatic lessening since 2007?

2. Why did you count Rudd as a forced resignation? He freely chose a leadership challenge knowing in advance he was choosing a career change – either to become PM or backbencher. No?

3. Did you also count Keating in June 1991 as a forced resignation? Did you count the other ministers over the years who retired to the backbench in similar circumstances – unrelated to actual ministerial performance?

Thanks, Chris.

Cheers, AA

Alan, I have learnt a lot from OLO readers, especially from critics.
Sadly I have gained no insight from you.

You seem to have a problem with anyone who disagrees with you. I have never come across anyone so righteous or arrogant in terms of his or her opinion.

I think your attitude speaks for itself. You bag my article, you bag my academic piece published in a leading Aust journal. You bag every Murdoch newspaper as if they do not have good journalists. Surely, between the many of us, we have something useful to say.

Please save your efforts, although I am sure you will have the last word.

I'd like to take a slightly different look at the issue. Much is made of vested financial interests but far less of other motivators which for many people can be a far greater reason to act with bias.

We've had some coverage of Abbott and conflict between his catholic beliefs and his role as health minister in the Howard government but little other coverage is given to the issue. Other than the issue of religion there has been little debate on the role private priorities play n public policy.

Former union bosses as ministers in areas involving Industrial Relations is another area where there would seem to be conflict of interest. Likewise people with a history of gender based advocacy in area's that could create a conflict of interest.

I like the idea of a minister with a strong interest in an area but not so much that they act based on personal interest or belief ahead of fair treatment. I assume that most would claim the ability to put the role ahead of personal bias but am not convinced that strong personal passion are any less a motivator than financial gain.

R0bert

Chris Lewis

Thank you for the discussion I think you made a lot more sense than your opponent.

Alan and his support crew, Sun Flower et la, has a history of pushing the Labor bandwagon while trying to sound neutral, distant and considered.

Thanks KarlX; i do try and be balanced as much as possible.

It is funny in a way; most of the good feedback i have had outside OLO generally comes from centre-right sources, even though I have been a Labor man for most of my life. I think that speaks for itself.

R0bert, i think your idea is excellent and would make a geat study to see just how policy is shaped from the different backgrounds of ministers and so on.

My gut feeling is that most MPs are decent people committed to a common aim defined as the public interest rather than certain interests, but the incidence of bad govt made up of poor MPs is indeed real.

Without going into the intellectual depth of your proposal, which of course would require extensive research and time, i will soon produce a piece for OLO citing the NSW Labor experience in recent decades. I am dumbfounded how a govt can be so poor and i think your question would help explain the dubious practices by many ministers and MPs.

While answers to improve ministerial accountability and performance can seem hard given ongoing scandals and shortcomings, there is no doubt that certain governments do perform better than others.

Sunflower, we also included parlimentary secretaries as ministers. That is how we got ten under the Howard govt. (Short, Gibson, Woods, Prosser, Sharp, Jull, Magauran, Heffernan, Campbell, Santoro).

We also consider any forced resignaiton to be one that results in some form of pressure and call to resign from conflict, although you are right to sugggest that some ministers choose to resign rather than being forced to do so at time.