Four Corners: we stand by our story
|
A few words on Bernard Keane’s rant against Four Corners for its coverage of the botched pink batts program “Lethal Miscalculation”. Keane accused us of “cherry picking” the facts — to whit — ignoring the findings of the former bureaucrat Allan Hawke’s report into the home insulation scheme so that we could make a story about government bungling, when, according to Keane, the real story was that environment minister Peter Garrett had been cleared of wrongdoing. (see his story Peter Garrett is exonerated and nobody cares) Trouble is Keane is not right, far from it. As executive producer Sue Spencer told Crikey last Friday, we thoroughly examined the Hawke report just days before we went to air. We concluded that it supported our story, so we posted it on our website. Hawke said the aims of the $2 billion program were to stimulate the economy and insulate homes, he observed: “any objective assessment of the HIP will conclude that, despite the safety, quality and compliance concerns, there were solid achievements against the program objectives.” In other words — despite the fact that upwards of half a million homes will have to fixed at enormous cost, despite the fact that the fraud was “simply alarming” (Hawke again), and despite the fact that four young men died, the economy was stimulated to the tune of $1.2 billion. Our whistleblower pointed out that Garrett’s department knew that turbo-charging an unregulated industry with $2 billion and not regulating it would make an unsafe industry more unsafe. Senior bureaucrats were advised that under these circumstances fraud would be rife, that people could die. This prescient advice was ignored. We know now that the auditing and inspection regime — despite claims by Senator Arbib that it was “robust” and minister Garrett it was “significant” — were window dressing. By September when more than half a million homes had been insulated, only 172 roofs had been physically inspected by a grab bag of Medicare staff, departmental bureaucrats and other “inspectors”. When Hawke noted that Garrett had responded in an appropriate and timely manner following advice from his department, once can only ask what on earth was going on in the culture of DEWHA that bullied this fearless advice coming through the ranks? And more importantly, why didn’t Garrett know what was going on in his own department? Wendy Carlisle’s next story The Spilling Fields about the Montara and Gulf of Mexico Oil Spills, will be broadcast on ABC Radio National’s Background Briefing on Sunday July 4 at 9am. |
|
|
|
14 Comments
Perhaps Ms Carlisle of the ABC should explain why we the viewers, should believe the words of the “so called “, whistleblower? Sorry in Ms Carlisle’s words, “our whistleblower”. Since when is a whitleblower ours? Does he belong to the ABC? Did you manufacture him/her? or is it an unfortunate use of words? More needs to be answered about the ABC’s mole.
Long before all this insulation beat-up - yes we regret very much that four young men died in rooves/roofs in the past year
I report that my own - very experienced - very smart electrician - aged in his 40-50’s also died from electrocution in a roof where he was working.
Considering how long this has been happening in the states with no-one reporting, questioning or condemning the state government or industry I think “cherry picking” is pretty accurate.
As I read and digest Ms Carlisle and her complete denial of everything BK wrote, perhaps she would reflect on these words of hers…”Our whistleblower pointed out that Garrett’s department knew that turbo-charging an unregulated industry with $2 billion and not regulating it would make an unsafe industry more unsafe. Senior bureaucrats were advised that under these circumstances fraud would be rife, that people could die.” Again this is all so much a who do we believe? commentary. A whistleblower, who could be anyone, with an axe to grind? The Senior officers? The Minister? or Ms Carlisle?
Given the ABC blatant bias against the PM and his Government, in news and current affairs reporting, I am deeply suspicious of this “our whistleblower”. Is he/she still employed by the Dept? With their stated inside knowledge of all that was said and revealed, surely he /she could not remain. Surely that agrieved troubled conscience disallows continued association with this horrendous Ministry. Or is this just a shadowed figure, suddenly created to add maximum benefit to a massive beat up. Behind the shadow of a face and the disguised voice, just what are we to believe. Perhaps a cosy job within the ABC as reward.
I concluded, after seeing the programme, there is more than meets the eye to the complilation and presentation of this 4Corners. Nothing Ms Carlisle has written changes that, merely leaves the door wide open for speculation. A very poor effort then and now. But the ABC hardly presents itself as an unbiased media outlet these days. I cannot see what they expect to get out of an Abbott led Government, apart from the odd whiff of incense.
It surely cannot expect more loosening of the chains, past experience of Howard and Co should make that abundantly clear.
Looking over Ms Carlisle’s previous journalistic work shows only anti Rudd and Labor articles for Their ABC.
The facts that one of the four dead died of heat stroke or that the program improved health and safety tenfold from previous mortality rates are irrelevant to this lady.
Quite simply put, anything you read from this cherry picking lady has no credit and displays the current underhandedness of the ABC.
Wendy Carlisle hasn’t convinced me that her work on this program was anything but fair and reasonable.
She had access to work done by Possum on the Howard program running before Rudd’s and it showed that 4 people had died and that insulation fires were 15% higher than the current program.
Ms Carlisle might like to let us know why she chose to ignore these facts and, on the hole, the program was poorly researched and poorly presented.
4 Corners is unfortunately no longer a must watch.
I have to admit it, I’m looking forward to Ms Carlisle’s next program.
The Spilling Fields….The true truth about Peter Garrett and his role in Gulf of Mexico Oil Spills
I have felt for a while that the ABC has moved to the right in some quarters, whilst my brother in law, who is very much to the right, believes it is a hotbed of leftists. Maybe the national broadcaster reinforces one’s own prejudice by being balanced.
@ jchercelf I have known at least 4 electricians who have died at work. 3 electricuted, 1 crushed and 1 steamed. It is a very dangerous occupation.
Ms Carlisle indicated that they had read the Hawke report and
One can only wonder if it would have made an appearance at all if it had directly contradicted the 4 corners story.
It took me a while to find the link on the 4 corners web pages for the insulation expose - the link is broken by the way, though that is no fault of 4 corners - the link to the report is now http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/publications/energy-efficiency/home-insulation-hawke-report.aspx.
4 corners may have generously ‘posted it on our website’ but they certainly made no reference to the Hawke report in the actual broadcast program. Given how topical and relevant it was this is an astonishing omission.
I am not accusing 4 corners of being inaccurate here - I’m sure the facts presented in the program were accurate, or reasonably believed to be accurate. My accusation is the more subtle one that there was a general lack of context - context that was provided in a much better way by the (unmentioned) Hawke report. It is almost always possible to find people who said before something was done that there would be loss of life, limb, money, etc. Frequently this is preemptive covering of one’s behind. For any activity undertaken by any organisation, including the government, there is always risk. If the government (or anyone else) avoided all risk, nothing would ever be accomplished anywhere. The question is always whether the decisions taken were reasonable and justifiable in context. Hawke concluded that they were.
As Hawke pointed out, no amount of regulation would have made the deployment of insulation in a large number of homes completely safe. How many fires would be reasonable? How many installation deaths? The number is not zero, so what is it Wendy Carlisle? Without such context and comparison the 4 corners report was no more than a play on sympathy for the family of the dead installer and simplistic outrage at the government.
The HIP has resulted in improved oversight and regulation of the insulation installation industry, along with hundreds of thousands of homes with perfectly installed installation. The rate of fires and death have been lower than before the HIP. To me that means the government was getting stuff right. Demanding perfection means that nothing will be done, ever.
Wendy - neither Peter Garrett or any other government pollie caused the problems with the stimulus insulation program. All the problems, including the tragic deaths, were caused by dodgy and irresponsible installers and the State governments who failed to monitor the program for WH&S breaches.
None so blind as those who will not see (what they don’t want to see).
Thanks Wendy for your programme and your excellent response to BK’s diatribe.
@ lewis…I would not have expected anything else from you than to agree and suck fanny
@ jackol….so you are happy to accept the whistleblower was genuine and a concerned citizen ready to hide behind anonymity, yet remain in the employ of a Dept that he/she blatantly accuses of causing deaths of individuals. Oh what a brave soul, ready to accept the payment of 4Corners, hide, yet still accept a salary you and I pay for. I am more inclined to think the person was in the business of what’s in it for me, hide my identity and I will say what you want to hear.
Mack the Knife in an earlier post on this blog says it all about Ms Carlisle. Anything for a story madam?
I didn’t see the Four Corners programme in question but would like to add that I agree with Bakerboy. We came very close to having our pink batts insulation catch fire recently. They were installed in 2005 far too close to halogen downlights. A strict no-no I believe. We have since fixed it ourselves rather than rely on dodgy installers. It amazes me that some fabulous investigative journalist hasn’t thought of doing some research into how many housefires are attributable to insulation prior to the stimulus programme.