The Herald Sun have an interesting exclusive.
THE Federal Government has been accused of delaying a high-priority project costing just $7.5 million to improve protection for Diggers in Afghanistan.
Despite Labor’s Budget pledge to spend $1.1 billion to upgrade body armour and weapons for frontline troops, the Herald Sun can reveal a research project called “soldier survivability” that was commissioned by the Army has been put on hold because there is no financing.
Minister Greg Combet’s response? (emphasis added)
This specific proposal was not the subject of any ministerial decision. This Survivability project was not formally commissioned by Defence. It is a worthwhile proposal and needs further development. The Government takes all proposals very seriously, in particular those that improve the protection of our troops, and this proposal was treated no differently. My office has encouraged the DTMC and Defence to look for funding streams for this project.
In other words, it hasn’t been funded by the government. But the Herald Sun has already told us that. The question is, why not?
Sophie Mirabella has a theory.
Has she [Gillard] decided the military, like pensioners, don’t vote Labor?
I would like to hear the answer to that question.
so the work wasn’t commissioned by the Defence Department and no the Herald sun tolds us the exact opposite.sounds like the rot you wrote about in terms of rorting which which badly wrong as well and you never acknowledged
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 8:38 am
by the way it isn’t a pledge now it is happening
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 9:12 am
Maybe tightly compressed pink batts can be used as a substitute for body armour?
boy on a bike
30 Jul 10 at 9:21 am
Plenty of cash for clunkers but not for kevlar.
Nice.
C.L.
30 Jul 10 at 9:28 am
CL thinks $1.1b is not much money
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 9:33 am
My office has encouraged the DTMC and Defence to look for funding streams for this project.
So they’re looking for cash. Amazing how easily they found it for the clunkers program
And $1.1 billion is not much money for this government. They blew at least $2 billion burning down houses and trying to make them safe again.
C.L.
30 Jul 10 at 9:40 am
they didn’t burn down any houses.
there were much less houses burnt down as the government improved safety tenfold.
$1.1b is being spent on examining ways to improve safety for soldiers.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 9:48 am
sigh – I can see the ‘no houses were burnt down’ going to feature for many years along with skanky ho and Toozing.
Sinclair Davidson
30 Jul 10 at 9:50 am
sinkers aren’t you even going to say sorry for not reading the Auditor General’s report and then relying on Journo from The OZ who got the whole story wrong.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 10:15 am
If the government is going to argue they saved unemployment from rising they’re going to have to live with the counter-claim that they burnt down houses.
dover_beach
30 Jul 10 at 10:23 am
The government did not put any insulation into any house.
On the other hand house burnt from insulation dropped like a stone because of the policy.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 11:29 am
Homer;
You need to go. Centrelink is calling for you.
JC
30 Jul 10 at 11:31 am
The government did not put any insulation into any house.
The government paid for it.
dover_beach
30 Jul 10 at 11:32 am
Forrest go to the white padded cell the attendants are calling.
Snoopy the people who put the insulation in are to blame for any problems not who pays for it.
They do not put the insulation in.
The government did put together policies which meant industry safety standards improved dramatically.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 11:35 am
Ireland … Baltic states.
don’t forget to mention them again Homer
jtfsoon
30 Jul 10 at 11:39 am
well no-one does here Statman.
They failed but they implemented Catallaxian policies!
I would have thought Glass Jaw and Sinkers would be gloating about their success
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 11:44 am
Snoopy the people who put the insulation in are to blame for any problems not who pays for it.
Who paid the shonks? The government did, directly.
The government didn’t employ a single person in the private sector over the last two years and yet you argue they saved us from crippling unemployment.
dover_beach
30 Jul 10 at 11:53 am
the people who put the insulation where it was done badly were to blame.
more proof of catallaxian madness that it is the people who pay are to blame.
So all the houses that burnt down before the policy were all the fault of the householders!
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 11:56 am
Homer
Did you have insulation installed in your house before the government program started (ie, did you pay for it out of your own pocket)?
If not, did you have it installed by the government? (ie, did you bother to get it done when someone else was paying for it)?
boy on a bike
30 Jul 10 at 12:07 pm
the people who put the insulation where it was done badly were to blame.
more proof of catallaxian madness that it is the people who pay are to blame.
So all the houses that burnt down before the policy were all the fault of the householders!
You dissembling twit. When this issue was first covered before you placed the onus upon the householder as the purchaser of this service (buyer beware) as a means of absolving the government of any responsibility. Now, you’re arguing that neither the householder nor the buyer (the government) are responsible, only the installer. You change your story more often the GaGa changes her costume during her performances.
No one, and certainly not I, have ever said that the installer didn’t bear the bulk of the responsibility for these fires, etc., they do, but to suggest that the government didn’t create the conditions for these fires, etc. is complete nonsense.
dover_beach
30 Jul 10 at 12:09 pm
Sophie Mirabella has nailed it IMO.
Have a look at the AEC’s reports on booth results from electorates with a high level military presence (Townsville, Holsworthy, Enoggera etc.)
Pedro the Ignorant
30 Jul 10 at 1:02 pm
well yes I did BOB.
As I had helped out other people I had a fair idea of what had to be done.
Snoopy,
yes the buyer has the responsibility to be sure of the quality but the problem of poor insulation remains that of the people putting it in.
Duh!
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 1:05 pm
As I had helped out other people I had a fair idea of what had to be done.
Snoopy
Oh my god. Maybe Rudd isn’t to blame after all. Maybe all the housefires that occured were due to Homer’s ‘help’
jtfsoon
30 Jul 10 at 1:08 pm
As I had helped out other people I had a fair idea of what had to be done.
Snoopy,
yes the buyer has the responsibility to be sure of the quality but the problem of poor insulation remains that of the people putting it in.
Duh!
Firstly, you have had no idea of what had to be done. And secondly, the buyer, in this instance, was the government; they paid the installers directly.
dover_beach
30 Jul 10 at 1:17 pm
if the insulation is the reason for the fire who put in the insulation?
again very very slowly you are saying all the fires before the policy were caused by the buyers.
This is so stupid I don’t know why you are saying it. Only CL has said that previously.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 1:21 pm
again very very slowly you are saying all the fires before the policy were caused by the buyers.
Very, very slowly, I’m not saying that, you dissembling goat.
In your own words, “the buyer has the responsibility to be sure of the quality”; the buyer in this instance was the government. The government was often paying shonks to install insulation. Many of these shonks entered the insulation business because of the government insulation program. Consequently, the government must bear some, but not all, of the responsibility for what has since eventuated.
dover_beach
30 Jul 10 at 1:46 pm
What a disgusting, contrived load of shite.
A research project which isn’t likely to have any deliverables for a number of years and that was only formally presented a few weeks ago doesn’t get immediately approved for funding so it must be political bias?
And nobody mentions that the textile CEO with the concern about pork barrelling comes from smack bang in the middle of Sophie Mirabella’s electorate, which was pretty much pork barrel central from the time she entered the parliament. I wonder how much government largesse they received at previous elections?
Give me a fucking break.
badm0f0
30 Jul 10 at 2:13 pm
In your own words you are unless you completely stupid.
You are saying since the government paid then it was their responsibility.
Ergo it was the responsibility of the buyer before the policy i.e the householder.
The buyer should avail themselves of information to assist them.
Things like testimonials from previous customers, lifetime guarantees, years in the business all help.
You again miss the point there were VASTLY less fires under this policy.ask yourself why if you are capable?
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 2:16 pm
Bado:
Is the story true of not? IF it’s not true where’s the evidence?
There seems to be history that this government will only finance projects that support them politically and the military is not really one of their constituencies.
It’s really no good just feigning this outrage without the hard evidence. Give us all a break fella.
JC
30 Jul 10 at 2:21 pm
There weren’t vastly fewer fires; the rate of fires per installation dropped significantly but there was a massive increase in installations. So there were more fires in the short run.
It’s another question as to whether the program induced installations that would otherwise not have taken place or merely brought forward installations that would have been taken later. It’s likely the safety reforms will reduce overall risks in this area in the long run as fortunately they will likely live beyond the program itself.
badm0f0
30 Jul 10 at 2:26 pm
badm0f0 ,
I think anyone aware of the figures would realise I was talking about relative figures not absolute.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 2:30 pm
“IF it’s not true where’s the evidence?”
If it is true where’s the evidence? The article didn’t supply any – other than the fact the project was only presented several weeks ago.
badm0f0
30 Jul 10 at 2:31 pm
Bado
You rusted up labor supporters are really fucked in the head, bado. You all for the most part suffer some form of mass denial.
look you fuckwit, the Lurch/Rudd insulation fiasco burned houses down and resulted in 5 people being killed.
It was the single most disastrous government program in not only the history of this country, but modern western history, as no western government I can think of has ever spent money on a faulty scheme such as this one, actually burned down homes and killed people.
Don’t play the stats card with me either, you deranged loon.
Seriously, you’re all fucked in the head.
Rudd could have turned out to be Dexter all you’d all forgive him if he were ahead in the polls.
JC
30 Jul 10 at 2:33 pm
Homer:
You are the single worst economist in Oceania, which takes in most of the southern hemisphere. You really have a nerve discussing stats.
JC
30 Jul 10 at 2:35 pm
yeah don’t play the statistics with Forrest. He doesn’t understand them.
4 people were killed
2 employers are being prosecuted.
2 more uncountably will be.
you truly are an idiot
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 2:35 pm
Homer – you still don’t know the difference between a marginal and average effect.
Badmofo – it WAS a short run programme. It may still cause other accidents.
You know where we stand, but the ALP can be alright. This mob however have Governance down to below shithouse though.
.
30 Jul 10 at 2:39 pm
This delay has been going on since the Howard era. And I’ve heard it’s quite acute. These people are risking their lives for
Dick Cheneytheir country. Disgraceful.Adrien
30 Jul 10 at 2:40 pm
“You rusted up labor supporters are really fucked in the head, bado. You all for the most part suffer some form of mass denial.”
Learn to read shit for brains, I’m not in any denial about how bad the program was nor about the outcomes. Just because I don’t sign up to your constant stream of wankery doesn’t mean I agree with the exact opposite either.
badm0f0
30 Jul 10 at 2:42 pm
Oh Okay Homes. it was 4 instead of 5 people killed as a result of the Lurch/Rudd Insulation fiasco.
Thanks for the correction, however let me tell you that CL has counted 5 were killed as a result of this program.
So who to believe? You, who thinks Skanke ho is an Asian Warlord’s mistress (not wife) or CL?
Ummm that’s a hard one. Let me think about that for a while.
Just thought about it. I’ll take Cl’s number rather than yours Homer. Sorry.
JC
30 Jul 10 at 2:42 pm
Homer no kidding, but did you write economic reports as shocking bad as this?
There weren’t vastly fewer fires; the rate of fires per installation dropped significantly but there was a massive increase in installations. So there were more fires in the short run.
It’s another question as to whether the program induced installations that would otherwise not have taken place or merely brought forward installations that would have been taken later. It’s likely the safety reforms will reduce overall risks in this area in the long run as fortunately they will likely live beyond the program itself.
This is just freaking drivel.
JC
30 Jul 10 at 2:44 pm
Yea, bado, your defense of the lurch/ Rudd insulation fiasco and the Government’s refusal to finance military equipment that would promote safety of our soldiers is .. how should I put it…. Nuanced perhaps?
Can I give you some advice. You know you’ve got a really fucked up, hammer headed argument when you see Homer latching on to it.
JC
30 Jul 10 at 2:48 pm
Marky show the difference then.
In Forrest land
in year 00 there were 10 installations but 5 fires resulting from that.
in year 01 there were 100 undulations but 10 fires resulting from them.
In Forrest land the fires got worse.
by the way any idea why employers are being prosecuted at all idiot?
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 2:53 pm
“the Government’s refusal to finance military equipment that would promote safety of our soldiers is .. how should I put it…. Nuanced perhaps?”
It’s a research project not a purchasing or manufacturing program, they weren’t supplying anything to the troops.
One of the few things this government has actually consulted people on the ground about and acted on was force protection. Rudd and others made a point of asking troops in Afghanistan what the issues were, what they needed and they actually followed up on it for a change. They probably mostly did so because they didn’t want cop articles about dodgy equipment as the Libs had in the past.
badm0f0
30 Jul 10 at 3:01 pm
Homer your numbers are all crap.
Go away. You make shit up as you go along.
JC
30 Jul 10 at 3:02 pm
RE” Peter Garrett/Lurch
Garrett is actually Uncle Fester. This is the truth. What happened is that Fester was sick of his bovine physique and decided he liked Lurch’s. So he swapped heads with Lurch and assumed the identity of Peter Garrett who is being held prisoner in Gitmo.
It’s true. I have proof. Here’s a photo of ‘Garrett’ without make-up at the precise moment when he gets the idea for the insulation scheme.
Adrien
30 Jul 10 at 3:02 pm
Oops, bad italics!
badm0f0
30 Jul 10 at 3:02 pm
Homer
Thank you for helping yourself to our hard-earned wealth.
My question for you is this – if having insulation installed in your house is of such a great benefit, why didn’t you pay for it yourself before the government launched this program? If the benefits are so great, surely it would have been worthwhile for you (and your friends) to have done it yourselves without a government handout?
boy on a bike
30 Jul 10 at 3:06 pm
bado… Why hasn’t it been funded by the government?
Almost every major project this bunch of retards have funded never required any cost benefits analysis. Even the 43 billion white elephant (NBN) didn’t
So now we’re getting all scientific on how they spend the money? Yea right. With this lot.
The military can wait until the government has the money, which will be in 2050. Other more deserving projects come first, such as the ALP’s constituencies.
You rusted labor fuckers are unbelievable.
JC
30 Jul 10 at 3:08 pm
In your own words you are unless you completely stupid.
FDB makes more sense with a faulty keyboard then you do with a functional one.
You are saying since the government paid then it was their responsibility.
Ergo it was the responsibility of the buyer before the policy i.e the householder.
Homer, this is what I said:
The government was often paying shonks to install insulation. Many of these shonks entered the insulation business because of the government insulation program. Consequently, the government must bear some, but not all, of the responsibility for what has since eventuated.
I can’t make it any plainer.
The buyer should avail themselves of information to assist them.
Things like testimonials from previous customers, lifetime guarantees, years in the business all help.
Since the government was the buyer, paying the installer directly, you might ask yourself why it never did any such thing when registering installers that were involved in this program.
You again miss the point there were VASTLY less fires under this policy.ask yourself why if you are capable?
If it was so much safer why did the government have to run an ancillary program involving inspections and repairs, removal of foil insulation, etc. to ensure the safety of buildings involved?
dover_beach
30 Jul 10 at 3:20 pm
BOB,you obviously have Statman disease.
I did pay for it all myself!!
Forrest as I said you simply do not understand simple statistics.
Snoopy,
The Government does not own the place the insulation went in.It isn’t very hard to make enquiries or even examine what has been done in your roof or even to get the people to explain what they have done.
That is the responsibility of the homeowner.
Each company operating here signed documents saying they had the expertise and experience to implement them.
The Government merely had to pay some or all of the money.
If the insulation goes up in flames then the people putting it in bear the responsibility.
As I said previously on your peculiar logic the responsibility for the larger number of fires before the policy lies with the householder
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
30 Jul 10 at 3:51 pm
Each company operating here signed documents saying they had the expertise and experience to implement them.
Did the government receiving these documents ever check them? Wouldn’t you think this appropriate as a part of a system of registering installers?
The Government merely had to pay some or all of the money.
That makes them the buyer, in whole or part.
As I said previously on your peculiar logic the responsibility for the larger number of fires before the policy lies with the householder
No it doesn’t because previously the householder wasn’t registering any of these installers which is what occurred under the relevant policy.
dover_beach
30 Jul 10 at 4:08 pm
I am surprised that JC is still here – isnt today rehab day?
rog
30 Jul 10 at 6:49 pm
Sinclair, who definitelyaint no Shakespeare, seems to be quite happy to run with the cornbeef and cabbage stuff churned out by the Herald Sun.
rog
30 Jul 10 at 6:53 pm
woops
rog
30 Jul 10 at 6:54 pm
DB proves that in his present state he is incapable of any industry and should probably seek professional help for his Aspergers
rog
30 Jul 10 at 6:56 pm
snob – nothing wrong with corned beef.
Sinclair Davidson
30 Jul 10 at 8:11 pm
Corned beef, cabbage, mustard and white sauce. Thanks, Gran!
Infidel Tiger
30 Jul 10 at 8:49 pm
Fritters! Now there is a best use of the corned beef, breakfast the next day.
Rog, you sure have shit on your liver, what’s the point?
pedro
30 Jul 10 at 9:12 pm
The ALDI corned beef is pretty good.
Sinclair Davidson
30 Jul 10 at 9:13 pm
Fritters and tomato sauce. Yum!
Hey Sinclair, DefenSe?!
C.L.
30 Jul 10 at 9:31 pm
Oh my God !!! Do you guys knit as well
tal
30 Jul 10 at 10:05 pm
I just knitted myself some hand warmers, Tal.
If you like, I can send you a pair.
C.L.
30 Jul 10 at 10:26 pm
CL – American, I know.
Sinclair Davidson
30 Jul 10 at 10:57 pm
Wodgie Is just doing a poor imitation of phil when s/he used to come on here and abuse everyone from the getgo.
Good one wodge. Stay classy.
JC
30 Jul 10 at 11:57 pm