Garrett, Rudd, roof insulation and the media:

Roger Noakes writes: Can’t agree more with what  Martyn Smith wrote (yesterday, comments). I’ve felt extremely disappointed and depressed with the Australian media for such a vacuous beat up. I was hoping that the culture wars were dissipating and politics in Australia was transforming into some form of cooperative, progressive endeavour that had good public policy has its main driving force and outcome. The insulation scheme was good public policy.

It’s weak and pathetic for the Opposition to attempt to blame Garrett for the insulation scheme workplace deaths — the scope of the public attention the beat up got in the mainstream media could have been used positively to help right the wrongs of poor workplace OH&S and change some tradies poor work practices. Instead the storyline implied if killed or injured at the work place — blame a Federal Minister not your employer, supervisor or your own mistakes.

And what seems more strange from the so called political party of small government and individual responsibility is that they try to publicly ignore and deflect the responsibility of the householder in the decisions they have to make about what they do to their property. I received a small rebate from the NSW Govt for solar hot water — I chose the hot water system, I selected the plumber and I blamed the plumber when he overcharged me because he knew I was getting a rebate although a much smaller rebate than the usual this crook was used to — I didn’t blame the NSW Government Minister — my decision to choose the plumber and participate in the scheme.

This media mashup also showed that post Turnbull, the Opposition is reverting to not only downward envy politics (harsher welfare infringement penalties – poor bastards) but upward envy as well — Abbot having a go at Garrett’s wage as a Cabinet Minister. I’m lost and a bit alienated by all this — we do have a wretched mainstream media in Oz but luckily we also have Crikey whom I found all those years ago in 2002.

Greg Williams writes: Martyn Smith reckons Kerry O’Brien and the media have been a bit rough on Kevin Rudd.  After all, “Only a very small percentage of insulators have been casualties and few houses have gone on fire.”  And he thinks “the government did a reasonable job on this program and that Rudd hasn’t had a fair go”.

Well, that’s a relief Martyn, with “only” four preventable deaths, 90-odd house fires directly attributed, 160,000 houses with pink batts alone independently deemed safety risks and somewhere between 1% and 2% of all foil batt installations also independently deemed to be likely to have “serious electrical problems”, (translation:  “potentially kill anybody who touches them”).

And an estimated cost of $63million just to check the extent of the problem (with no one apparently game to even take a stab at the rectification costs), all apparently occurring during a period Garrett had been attending weekly briefing meetings with his Department, and after numerous, specific warnings were flagged in the strongest possible terms to his Department by various, highly credible authorities … what would you say constitutes an unreasonable job, mate?

Carolyn Whybird writes: Why do you always write to rate Labor as any good. As a 60 year old I’ve been around too long to believe his or your crap. As usual the Libs will have to come back and save the day. All Labor is good for is spending money and they don’t do that too wisely. Wake up and write some decent, believable articles.

Automated electoral rolls:

Warwick Sauer writes: Re. “NSW automated electoral rolls make sense, yet Feds reject them” (yesterday, item 10). Graeme Orr’s piece in support of electoral roll maintenance failed to mention one great irony of our “democracy”: that as part of our “democratic” process, we make voting compulsory and fine anyone who doesn’t do so.  The maintenance and enforcement of that law makes a mockery of the so-called “right” to vote.  It’s not a “right” at all: it’s a penal obligation.

In addition, worldwide, it’s an obligation imposed and strictly enforced in only one other “democratic” developed nation, that being Belgium.  And yet, compulsory voting receives almost blanket support from all sides of Australian politics.  Why?  Perhaps because, as per the AEC’s website:

Registered political parties are entitled to election funding where their endorsed candidate or Senate group receives at least 4% of the formal first preference votes. Independent candidates and Senate groups are also entitled to election funding if they receive 4% of the vote.  The amount of election funding payable is calculated by multiplying the number of first preference votes received by the rate of payment applicable at the time.

Currently, that rate is $2.28 per vote.  No wonder none of the parties want to change the status quo.

Cannabis use:

Jay Walker, former Australian correspondent for High Times magazine, writes: Re. “Don’t let the evidence get in the way of evidence-based policy” (26 February, item 10). Perhaps Bernard Keane, as a former Canberra-based federal bureaucrat, has spent too long inside the bubble on the hill, which might explain why he equates all cannabis use with abuse: a matter for concern.

This trend of increased use by over-50s and retirees is also apparent in the US of A where most of it is for medicinal purposes, which in a sense includes all use.

Given the wide range of medical symptoms that cannabis ameliorates such use is more likely to reduce not increase the demand on public health services by this age group and probably should be encouraged.

On the more significant point, the “hard-hitting advertising campaign” is really a continuation of the Howard government’s Tough on Drugs strategy. Since it’s targeted at teenagers and young adults, the evidence is in: shock tactics not only don’t work but often encourage use.

Until policy makers remove their ideological blinkers (and stop exploiting societal fear and ignorance) and accept that most people use all of the currently illicit drugs in a responsible manner there will be no evidence-based policy.

Packing the spectrum:

Arthur Major writes: Re. “Telcos throw spanner in the works of pay TV-ABC battle” (yesterday, item 14). Back in the 90s when I was tech bod at Port Stephens FM Community Radio, I was more than a little exercised to discover that Kerry Packer had lobbed his NBN Station largely into the FM Radio Band.

For tech nerds, analogue TV stations take up about 7 MHz of bandwidth compared with about 150 kHz for an FM radio station. Translating, this means that a TV station requires more than 40 times the bandwidth of an FM radio transmitter. Radio Regulations promulgated by the ITU outline strict demarcation for all services using spectrum, but not in Australia, it seems.

So the good burghers in the Port Stephens area were, and maybe still are, deprived of a massive chunk of spectrum that was officially reserved for radio, whether ABC, commercial or community.

Whether this weird state of affairs still exists in Port Stephens, I wouldn’t know. What I do know is that ACMA, formerly SMA and previously something else, is an extremely tolerant body. TV intervals dedicated to advertising are arguably the most generous in the world, so who is going to worry about an outrageous and irregular intrusion by one media form into an area reserved for something quite different?

Dishing out a quarter billion or more in kickbacks to the commercials seems to me to be just another example of ACMAs (or in this case the government’s) generosity.

Insiders:

Denise Marcos writes: Re. “Rudd’s sackloth-and-ashes tour — limited venues only” (yesterday, item 1). Fair suck of the sauce bottle, Bernard Keane. ABC’s Insiders rated 202,000 viewers last weekend, surely more substantive than “an obscure Sunday morning talk show”.

I baulk at your dismissal of Barrie Cassidy’s valuable and entertaining political forum. To snare a couple hundred thousand viewers at that off-peak hour on the Sabbath is significant.

Viewer numbers for Insiders fall within range of those for Lateline — would you blithely describe Tony Jones’/Leigh Sales’ contribution as an obscure weeknight current affairs show?

VCA:

Scott Dawkins, Industry Representative, SAVE VCA, writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (26 February, item 6). So to answer the author of this “tip” regarding the use of form submissions in the VCAM (VCA and Uni Melb Music) Review:

  • The fact the VCAM Review received 358 submissions is nothing short of a miracle when you consider:
  1. The Review is completely University led and moderated, meaning many people have dismissed it outright as a PR stunt and refused to be involved.
  2. The Discussion Paper itself was incredibly limited in scope and information e.g. there was no information regarding the massive financial implications for VCA becoming part of the University (see last week’s Crikey coverage). Any queries regarding the Discussion Paper were not answered by the University (see here)
  3. The Review Committee is filled with University loyalists, with only two out of nine staff and student representative actually elected. Indeed staff and students weren’t even told who the Committee was (leaving that task to SAVE VCA).
  4. The whole review process was timed to launch when staff and students were leaving school for 2009, with submissions due before they returned to classes for 2010.
  5. Only two information sessions were held on the Discussion Paper (ran by the highly controversial Dean), and members of the public, VCA graduates or arts business were not able to attend.
  • Like much of the last 10 months, it has been left to SAVE VCA’s volunteers to try and decipher the crap from the credible amongst the miniscule (and often conflicting) amounts of information released by the University in regards to the Review. The use of the submission template enabled us to distil for people the key “wish list” (knowing that had Discussion Paper readers purely relied on that document to produce their submissions, they would have been given a false impression of VCA’s status).
  • Beyond releasing it, the University did nothing to promote the Review, let alone help people understand it. The reason why so many submissions mirror the SAVE VCA template is because we were the only ones actively making information accessible and encouraging people to get involved in the Review despite its flaws.
  • When you look at the most detailed review submissions, they are often completed by people who had intimate knowledge of the college e.g. former VCA Advisory Board Members. Whilst these submission are incredibly valuable, Jane Citizen who wants to study Music Theatre at VCA, would have no hope of getting access to this information for her own submission.
  • Your assertion that VCA students and graduates have used the submission template out of some kind of academic lacking is highly offensive. By personalising the SAVE VCA template, students, staff, graduates, industry professionals, theatre and moviegoers, VCA mums and dads and arts lovers, were able to express their own unique VCA experience whilst simultaneously affirming their support of the core beliefs SAVE VCA have been fighting for i.e. retention of VCA as a independent, single campus, multidisciplinary, intensive and practical training ground for elite artists.
  • Your assertion that this Review is not a numbers games smacks of someone who has not had many dealings with the University of Melbourne. Throughout the entire SAVE VCA campaign we have found the University respond to two things (1) bad publicity and (2) the threat of more bad publicity. This Review is ABSOLUTELY a numbers game, and as the submissions prove, the overwhelming majority of respondents support the core ideals detailed above. This will make it incredibly difficult for the Review Committee to ignore or ‘PR’ such an overwhelming response.
  • And as you point out, it is “admirable” the University posted the submissions online. Perhaps what you didn’t know (nor care to ask) is that the only reason that submissions were available to read before Feb 12 was because of pressure from SAVE VCA (the Uni initially refusing to publish submissions until after the due date).

So “Tip Writer”, if at any time you’d like to get out from behind the safety and anonymity of your keyboard and actually help VCA, instead of criticising those that have given countless hours of volunteer work for over 10 months, that may be more constructive on your behalf. Until then, I would consider your own notion of how “the world really works” and check your facts first.