Garrettgate:

Joe Boswell writes: Re. “Richard Farmer’s chunky bits” (yesterday, item 11). Richard Farmer is right to say the official view seems to be that nobody is really responsible for the shambles, including deaths, arising from roofing insulation program. I’m not so convinced there is anything new about this. Garrett is right to mention that OHS is the responsibility of the states and territories. Once again, we have a powerful illustration that Australia’s constitutional arrangements are dysfunctional and very costly.

The original 19th century federal concept with strong states was sensible at a time when a single central government was almost unthinkable given the communication technology. That technology, and much more, has since changed beyond recognition but the constitution has not caught up. Now we have neither one thing nor the other.

The states are crippled by Canberra’s grip on their finances, but Canberra is weak too, pleading with and bribing the states or trying to impose its will by crude threats to cut funding. In consequence, education, health, law enforcement, OHS and so on are not really controlled by anyone and voters cannot tell who is responsible for anything. The examples are endless.

The trouble is, all this wasteful dysfunctional mess means huge numbers of jobs for politicians, public servants, private contractors and others who try to put patches on the cracks and hold the sprawling chaos together. That’s why none of them dare mention the real cause.

Denise Marcos writes: Several excitable members of the current shadow cabinet, including opposition leader Tony Abbott, were senior ministers in the Howard government during The Australian Wheat Board’s Oil For Food mess which poured $300M into the coffers of the corrupt Hussein regime.

Whilst the then Minister for Foreign Affairs & Trade, Alexander Downer, did not personally scribble a cheque addressed to “Hussein & Cronies”, ultimately he was responsible for the debacle. At the subsequent Cole Inquiry he “didn’t know…”, “was unaware of…”, “don’t remember…”, “can’t recall…” etc. Miraculously, Downer emerged from the kickback mire having overseen a government department which had badly bungled on the world stage.

Perhaps, like their former colleague Downer, the Coalition now “can’t recall” or “don’t remember” the AWB scandal. That Downer escaped culpability and held onto his portfolio after such abject incompetence means the Coalition set the bar for ministerial responsibility when they were in office.

Peter Garrett has a precedent.

Andrew Haughton writes: Consider it possible that the Government is employing Muhammad Ali ‘s famous “Rope a Dope” strategy. Garrett is standing alone absorbing  increasingly ferocious and perhaps desperate verbal pummelings from opposition. Tony Abbot is in danger of reinforcing his image as political thug. While the Opposition is concentrating all its attack on one target it is ignoring many others.

Increasingly people (even Miranda Devine!) are sounding sympathetic to the obvious underdog … Garrett. I think Labor could ride this one out and then come off the ropes swinging.

Mary MacKillop:

Andrew Lewis writes: Re. “Lessons in history: the little Aussie battler who’s heading for sainthood” (yesterday, item 14).Oh Lord, not Crikey too, mistaking the canonisation of Mary MacKillop with news. Surely if there was ever going to be a last remnant of sensible media willing to ignore this non-story, then Crikey would be it.

I was watching the news on Sunday night and as usual felt abused by their lack of effort to fill the half hour, but railed against this piece of flummery. Surely Crikey would take the side of the rationalists and avoid all mention of it.

Unfortunately you have failed me.

To top it all off, the sense that this is a news item in the same way that a gold medal at the games is a news item really juxtaposed what a nonsense this is.   It could only have been capped off by a group of nuns cheering and yelling “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oi, oi, oi!”

Warwick Sauer writes: Thank you, Mike Stuchbery, for giving us a few reasons why Mary Mackillop was a real sweet kid (which I don’t dispute).  What I’d really like to know, though, is whether you believe that two women were cured of cancer by reason of their praying to her?

I should forewarn you, if you answer no, I’ll then want to know why you are happy for your church to make such a big fuss and justify her “sainthood” on the basis of falsehoods.

And if you answer yes, not only will you hear my laughter from here, I’ll want you to explain why she hasn’t also cured every other person who’s prayed to her?

Jim Wiltshire writes: Mike Stuchbery wrote:

So what can we take from Mary MacKillop’s life? It’s that quintessential Australian tendency towards giving the establishment a hard time and giving the little guy a fair go.

Perhaps I’m far too naive and optimistic, but I think MacKillop’s life demonstrates the kind of commitment of social justice and equality that, slowly, manages to soak its way into our social fabric and make us a stronger people overall.

It also shows the tremendous value of education and the struggles often faced to provide it. So, as an Australian, an educational professional and a fan of giving the boss a hard time, I say “Onya, Mary!”.

It’s a pity that neither Crikey nor mainstream media apply the same principles and attitude to the plight of Australia’s War Veterans and their families.

Sydney transport:

Ray Edmondson writes: Re. “Sydney transport planning going nowhere fast” (yesterday, item 4). Given that the discredited NSW Labor government will almost certainly lose office at the next election, Kristina Keneally’s transport plan is tarnished as just another flip-flop, a blue sky public relations exercise. An incoming Liberal government would have to start all over again if it were to produce a credible long term vision which it could own, and which would have a chance of sustained public support.

The historical portents are not good. Anyone who remembers the notorious and semi-permanent Chalmers Street hole, alongside Central Station, will recall that it took decades to build the on-again, off-again Eastern Suburbs railway — a short line with just three new stations ending at Bondi Junction. Or how long it took to complete the city underground rail loop by building the Circular Quay link between Wynyard and St James.

The quoted cost of extending light rail from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill seems excessive, given that the tracks and right of way of the former goods line are already there: the existing light rail service now runs on the city end of that line. True, the remaining section will have to be adapted for light rail vehicles and have stations built, but how much will that really cost?

And if a second rail crossing of the Harbour is needed, why not reclaim the right of way where tram tracks used to cross the Harbour Bridge — and restore the original, balanced design of the Bridge into the bargain? Existing but now unused railway tunnels could also be reinstated. It’s not without irony that elements of Sydney’s past transport infrastructure, such as the tramway system, are now being restored. Once upon a time, there was some effective planning!

Yet so much of the story of Sydney’s public transport system, in living memory, has been a sad litany of poor decisions, missed opportunities, incompetence, small thinking and the waste of vast amounts of public money. Given the lessons of history and the vicissitudes of state politics, it is questionable whether a convincing and comprehensive transport plan for the city is within the reach of future state governments. It may now only be possible through Commonwealth intervention.

Free TV rebate:

Glen Frost writes: Re. “Mungo: here’s the Goss — Abbott may struggle to win the media war” (yesterday, item 12). I have decided to ask Wayne Goss to work for me, and other working families, to lobby the Federal Government (i.e. BFF Kevin Rudd) to reduce my income tax bill because of the large additional expenses of having children and a Sydney mortgage.

The transition from “Glen the single guy” to “Glen married with children” is akin, I believe, to the transition from analogue to digital TV for the FTA networks, and I should be handed lots of cash, err, I mean, receive a rebate, in the national interest.

Chris Fowler writes: Re. Yesterday’s editorial. I am confused by this TV license fee rebate that you are writing about. Your “editorial” yesterday refers to a $500m handout, yet further on in three separate articles, Mungo McCallum, Margaret Simons and Glenn Dyer all refer to a $250m rebate/handout or gift. Most media organisations are doing it. Which is correct?

Stokes:

Tim Deyzel writes: Re. “Stokes poised for media domination after Seven mining move” (yesterday, item 2). It beggars belief that “The Seven directors have … concluded that the [media & telecommunications] value-enhancing opportunities are limited”. Sadly this will become a self-fulfilling prophesy as board and senior management attention is diverted to a vainglorious merger.

Content delivery via the internet and mobile platforms has vast untapped potential. YouTube is only five years old yet it is a stable, reliable platform. The ABC’s iView system is similarly a pleasure to use. Contrast this with Seven’s poor attempts (or specifically those of Yahoo!7) at “catch up TV”. In many cases the ad plays right over the show!

The cacophony of two audio feeds and the loss of a segue into a new chapter of the story is inexcusable, amateur programming (in both IT and TV senses). Have a look at some of the comments on the Criminal Minds, Heroes or Grey’s Anatomy sections of their website. You’ll almost certainly be seeing comments that have never before been seen by a Seven or Yahoo7! executive!

Polling methodology:

Tony Re writes: Any chance that Bernard Keane, or someone else, could give a brief outline of the methodology used by at least NewsPoll, Nielsen and Roy Morgan when polling views on the possible outcome of elections?

There could be particular interest in telephone polling.  If mobile phone users are not polled, there would be a skew as a greater number of people are only using mobiles.

From yesterday’s Crikey, it would seem that Roy Morgan does face-to-face polling. Is this more accurate than other pollsters?

Rain:

Greg Cameron, Urban Rainwater Systems Pty Ltd, writes:  Taking rain is your common law right, right?  Not if you live in South Australia.

The ALP assured South Australians that it has ”absolutely no intention” of amending state law to tax the use of rainwater tanks for domestic water supply (SA Minister for Environment and Conservation, 27 February 2007).  In the first instance, this policy assumes that there is a law to be amended.  Already, restrictions are placed on the use of rainwater tanks for commercial water supply, which has the same effect as a tax.

Under SA law, a person’s rights at common law in relation to the taking of naturally occurring water are abolished.  ALP policy is that rain is naturally occurring water and rights at common law in relation to taking it are abolished.  ALP policy is that a person does not take rain with their roof.  It claims that water supplied by pipe from a roof to a rainwater tank (or anywhere else) is non-taken surface water.  Surface water is water flowing over land after having fallen as rain.

In SA, the meaning of land depends on the context.  In the context of water, land means land as a physical entity and water flowing over it is non-taken.  ALP policy is that a building is land as a physical entity.  However, it concedes that water in a rainwater tank is ”taken”.  The policy that water piped from a roof is non-taken means that a person takes rain with their rainwater tank, which is enclosed to prevent entry of dust, vermin and – you guessed it – rain.

In SA and Tasmania, the Liberals, Greens and independents decline to answer this simple question: Does a person take rain with their roof?  Presumably, they agree with the ALP.  Elsewhere, the ALP governments of NSW, Victoria and Queensland confirm that a person takes rain with their roof.

In these states at least, the primary right of access to rain is not vested in government.  But Tasmanians, West Australians and Territorians live underground, like South Australians.

Climate change:

Kieren Diment writes: I don’t know why you bother publishing Tamas Calderwood’s rubbish (yesterday, comments).  It’s pretty clear that his interest in this topic is related to maintaining his beliefs regardless of the evidence which clearly refutes them.

Rather than wasting my time dealing with his latest round of misinformation, you can read a rebuttal of his so-called argument.