Menu lock

Journalism

Feb 19, 2010

Peter Garrett and the perpetual present of politics

Peter Garrett either should or shouldn't have attended a meeting this week, and should or should roll out solar panels fast, and is or isn't guilty of industrial manslaughter. Welcome to political journalism.

Here’s some examples of our political journalism mired in a sort of “perpetual present” in which what happened two days ago, let alone two years ago, is forgotten.

And how once journalists get the smell of ministerial blood in their nostrils, the old higher brain functions start switching off and the pack instinct kicks in.

When Tony Abbott suggested last week that Peter Garrett could be charged with industrial manslaughter in NSW over one of the four deaths related to insulation installation, he should have been laughed out of town.  Coming from a former health minister — how many people died from medical errors in Commonwealth-funded care then, Tony? — it was particularly absurd.

Instead, it was taken seriously, with journalists breathlessly consulting IR lawyers.  The fact that Abbott was talking complete rubbish went missing from the follow-up. Imre Salusinszky — and I like me some Imre, and wish News Ltd would give him more to do than cover the Macquarie St circus — explored the issue in depth, with first port of call “OHS expert Ken Phillips”, who opined “Mr Garrett could be one of many considered within the responsibility loop for the insulation deaths”.

That would actually be Ken Phillips, head of the Independent Contractors Association, fierce critic of Labor, supporter of extreme IR deregulation and long-term opponent of the NSW workplace death laws.  How Phillips would have loved to suggest a Labor minister would be in the dock because of them.

When Salusinszky asked an “OH&S expert” without a partisan barrow to push, top IR lawyer Malcolm Davis, he got completely the opposite story: it was “very difficult to see how Mr Garrett or his department had control over a workplace”.

At least Salusinszky did some basic checking.  That was absent from much of the media coverage yesterday of the solar panels audit, which Crikey’s Jason Whittaker skewered.

What was an audit sought by Garrett’s department, covering panels installed under funding provided under the coalition (which ramped up solar panel funding under Malcolm Turnbull) and Labor, which found a 3% mis-installation rate against, literally, world best practice standards, suddenly became in the hands of the ABC’s AM program a new problem for the “embattled environment minister” around “concerns about the potential for house fires because of badly installed solar panels”.

The Clean Energy Council, which did the audit, was deeply unhappy about the story being politicised.

As late as this morning, the ABC website was running the story, which was apparently “adding to Mr Garrett’s woes” because of “new concerns over subsidised solar power panels installed on tens of thousands of roofs”.

That the facts didn’t fit with the Garrett-is-a-bungler narrative that has now taken hold in the media apparently didn’t worry the ABC.  Or, for that matter, Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt, who used the story to call on Garrett again to resign.

But when Hunt was pinned down by a journalist who knew the program that had been audited covered installations funded by the coalition, it was a different story.  Hunt began a convoluted dance, saying that “the message is clear” and that CEC audit should not be ignored and Garrett should be “cautious”.  “We’ve been very cautious on solar panels,” Hunt said.

Oddly, this is the Greg Hunt who throughout 2008 opportunistically joined the Greens in bagging Garrett for not rolling the solar panels program out quickly enough, after Garrett introduced a means test on the solar panel rebate to slow the remarkable demand for the program.  In June 2008, Hunt went skydiving — anyone remember that? — to demonstrate that the solar industry was in “freefall — but unlike me it doesn’t have a soft landing ahead of it”.

So much for “cautious”.  People with memories longer than five minutes might remember that, and point out the glaring inconsistency.

In fact, the most noteworthy aspect of the solar panel program started by Turnbull and accelerated by Garrett is how hugely successful it has been at getting solar panels on Australian roofs, leaving a legacy that will last far beyond Turnbull, Garret or even Hunt’s time in politics.

Garrett also copped it yesterday for cancelling a biodiversity speech to attend meetings with his department.

“I understand that he’s cancelled his engagements today. I hope it’s not just that he’s running from the media,” Abbott piously intoned.

That’s a bare three days since Abbott was outraged that Garrett had skipped a meeting and done his media engagements on — wait for it —  biodiversity.  “For Mr Garrett to be off in some national park when people’s home could be lethal thanks to his policy I think indicates that he has completely lost touch with the values of ordinary Australians,” Abbott said on Monday.

Rather than being called for his inconsistency, Abbott’s comments were dutifully reported by the press, entirely free of reference to his comments earlier in the week.

The Monday meeting was a departmental meeting with electrical worker representatives on the insulation program.  The idea that Garrett “skipped” the meeting was a complete fiction fabricated by the right-wing media.

The meeting Garrett “skipped” was one involving mid-level bureaucrats to discuss technical issues relating to the insulation program.  The presence of Garrett would have been entirely pointless, unless he picked up a working knowledge of cabling from all those years of touring.  For that matter, from my experience, having ministers in the room for such meetings is downright counterproductive, because industry representatives and bureaucrats are less frank than they would otherwise be.

You’d think press gallery journalists would have a clue about how bureaucracies in Canberra work, but no.

And you’d think journalists could at least consult their transcripts about what politicians said three days before, even if remembering back to 2008 is a little more tricky.

Apparently not.  Certainly not if it helps in the pursuit of a damaged minister.

Late breaking: Garrett is set to announce an end to the insulation scheme at a presser at 1.45pm today. Check back to The Stump for Bernard Keane’s analysis.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

90 comments

Leave a comment

90 thoughts on “Peter Garrett and the perpetual present of politics

  1. Most Peculiar Mama

    The insulation scam is GONE.

    Not the act of an innocent man.

    Garrett is guilty of chronic mismanagement and political opportunism.

    His timeis up.

  2. David Sanderson

    The troll strikes early but dreary and predictable.

  3. earnest scribbler

    Sock it to ‘um, mama!

  4. Eponymous

    I thought it was a good idea, possibly (I’m still not convinced) poorly executed.

    As stated, the legacy of having so many more homes insulated and so much more generating capacity will be noticed well beyond the current political timeframe. This long term thinking is worth supporting.

    Would have been a lot better if there hadn’t been any fatalities, but the same can be said of any work place.

    I’ve seen a few commenters bad mouth not just the program, but actual insulation as well. Barnyard Joyce even had a stab. Anyone questioning the value of insulating houses in Australia is so badly informed they’d be better off not talking at all.

  5. Eponymous

    Note too Mama the scheme is not ‘gone’. Starts again on June 1 with different criteria.

  6. abarker

    …Right, and I spose the GFC is Wayne Swan’s fault?

  7. SBH

    It utterly beggars belief that after 1000 words laying out the inconsistent, lazy ham-fisted approach that so many journos take these days the first comment is from numb nuts saying ‘told ya that Garrett was no good’

  8. rowan wilde

    Really Bernard? C’mon, you’re a reasonable guy, You can’t tell me the media has exactly been rigorous in checking everything the Rudd government has said over the last few years. And the media was grabbing every jugular it could during the liberals few years after the election loss re: leadership battles. Didn’t see you howling about that.

    So the media smells a contest in the air, big deal. Maybe there’s something to it all too.

    Along the lines of your article and using the same measure why hasn’t the media gone harder on the Rudd Govt’s commitment to a $43 billion NBN, close to ten times what was originally projected (see Peter Costello’s piece in The Age ‘The Streets of Conroy are paved with gold), without a business plan? Where is the business analysis, why hasn’t the media asked what else could be bought or topped up with $43 billion (if it even has to be that number at all).

  9. jenauthor

    Ahh, MPM, another well-thought-out series of Abbottisms.

    What’s an Abbottism you ask? That’s easy: short unfounded statement characterised by ill-informed falsehood or exaggeration.

  10. raymondchurch

    You fukwit mpm, in your condition you should be put down…I return from vacation to find you STILL trolling your way through blogs…you have no shame troll.

Leave a comment