Ah yes, Ministerial responsibility ...
" An obsolete superstition that Ministers
were responsible for everything that went
on in their department. Ministers were expected
to resign if one of their public servants made
a serious mistake.

Australians are far too pragmatic to pay any
attention to this archaic ritual of the
Westminster system. In the British Parliament
too the practice is now obsolete though loudly
proclaimed in the hopeful rhetoric ("Resign!
Resign!") of the Opposition parties."

(Dennis Pryor, "Political Pryorities: How to
get on top of Australian Politics.")

Belly:"Steering committee?
If Rudd, Garrett,any Labor Polly, let a union run this show prove it to me."

From the LABORNet website:"CFMEU Construction National Secretary Dave Noonan said the union had raised concerns about the level of training around the scheme through its involvement in the government's Home Insulation Scheme steering committee."

http://www.labor.net.au/news/1265983614_12500.html

According to the PM yesterday:""I'm advised that ... no safety concerns were raised, I'm so advised," he said.""

So, Belly, is Kevin Rudd a liar, or is Dave Noonan a liar?

Where was the AWU, BTW? Was old Bill Ludwig too busy making sure that young Joe "couldn't run a chook raffle" wasn't part of the mess?

Foxy

Why quote a journalist who was trying to be entertaining and controversial when there are fact sheets produced by Parliament and there are many debates on the subject recorded in Hansard? A few seconds Google should turn up Fact Sheets that refer to the inherited conventions of Westminster - not mentioned in the Constitution though because it was taken for granted that all would be aware of the inherited Westminster system of government. Federal and State systems show some flexibility (eg Qld's is unicameral) but never a rejection of the model.

Are you saying that Rudd doesn't think Garrett should resign because he (Rudd) doesn't believe in the convention of ministerial responsibility?

Why it's all Peter Garrett’s fault?

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

<<< A: ...ministerial responsibility, a bedrock of the "Westminster system". This is a system named after the famous Westminster Abbey, under which ministers who preside over unfortunate events are respectfully buried under the floor. As many of his political opponents have said in recent days, Garrett is a fine, decent, honourable man, and it just kills them to have to call for his resignation — they can hardly see the dispatch box through the tears — but unfortunately ministerial responsibility means he must....

....The problem is that Garrett rushed the insulation rebate scheme out far too hastily, with insufficient oversight and lax safety standards. For example, he waited 10 months before asking to see the report into the risks of the scheme...

...But 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...

...Most of all, it’s a case of shonky operators. Garrett did not make allowance for these. When setting up the scheme, the Minister totally neglected to insert a clause specifying that operators should be non-shonky.

...he did not make it clear that installers who completely ignored the rules would be in breach of the rules, and this of course was like a red rag to a bull for shonky operators. It’s a matter of psychology: shonky-operators crave structure and boundaries. If Garrett had simply said, "This scheme is not for shonky-operators", they would have respected that, and sorted themselves out. But left to their own devices and completely unaware that gross violations of safety standards were not allowed, the shonky-operators ran wild with their shonky ways. And thus, tragedy. All because of Peter Garrett and his fatal lack of anti-shonkiness. >>>

Severin,

True, it's not *all* his fault.

The gist of the "argument" you quote is that because Garrett did not actually fasten the clips he's not at fault. To that extent, true.

Really, he's guilty of a terminal lack of awareness of (i) what's out there in the industry and (ii) what affect the deployment of the insulation rebate scheme would have on the public and the industry. This goes to his competence as an administrator.

And, he is guilty of being dumb enough to be the spokesman/patsy for a rollout that probably has little to do with him and his Department (Environment). According to Jack Waterford's analysis in today's Canberra Times, the fault within the bureaucracy lies more with the Departments of Treasury, Finance, and Prime Minister & Cabinet.

I would like to add an analogy to this.

Say a security guard is hired to protect a bank premises, and whilst on duty he goes to sleep, and the business is robbed, and a customer killed.

In this scenario the robbers are responsible (as are the shonky installers), however, the complete failure of the guard to do his job enabled the robbery to take place.

The guard is not responsible, but he will surely be held accountable.

There is no dispute, that in the implementation of this policy Garrett was asleep at the wheel. If he had even done a halfway competent job, this disaster would not have occurred to this magnitude.

If having a loyal minister is more important than having a competent minister then Rudd will keep Garrett, however, if doing more than a bodgey job of governence is important, then Garrett should be as welcome as a dose of clap.