Whoever claims to be ‘without sin’ should reflect well before casting the first stone.

Politics, Garrett style, was not intended to cause harm or death.
That came with the patch someone in the labor machine forced upon him once he won his ‘raffle’.
The poor lad is probably, by now, beside himself with self-loathing through falling for the trap.

There are two ways of looking at the situation.
Peter, maybe, should have equipped himself with some comprehensive world wisdom before entering his new career –
And (not or) the machine he works for should have insisted he was equipped to do the job before he signed on for the job.

There is the aspect that Howard and his crew did manage to chew the hell out of industry safety standards at a time when many occupational/safety people had reached retirement or had decided that it was worth more than their pensions to argue the toss.

This author believes the fault lies at the base level of communications.
There have been too many skills lost at the technical levels within governance while at the same time the double effect of communications overload combined with a complete lack of ‘world skills’ at the advisory level has divorced even the most well-meaning of our legislators from reality.

My hobby involves electrics and my work history includes exposure to
Safety at work is a daily thing for me, sadly exposure to workplace death is too.
Here in this forum a thread once was highly critical of laws that forbid do it your self electrics, it happens
Once a very long time ago My weekend job was demolition, of houses.
On lifting roofs a spider web of bad wiring was often exposed.
a trade unionist I quite often show my concerns at horrible employers, usually of casual or contract labour.
Who give basically useless training then send boys to do mens work.
Work cover as we know it in NSW is a dreadful horrible failure, self funded it is a coffee club refuge and hiding place for slothful uncaring types.
Yes the deaths need not have taken place,tradesmen should only do such work,but Garrett, can we admit some push their own agendas at any cost, this wheel barrow is up side down, it is going no place and exists only as a tool to inflict insults on the ALP , surely No one can believe our system relies on one man.
Work cover a true story.
Phone rang in an office a workers says .
can you help, it is raining we are sitting in the rain no lunch room no toilets no first aid nothing.
Boss got a call we would like to have a look at your site , load abusive threats followed.
Work cover is asked to come look too.
Next morning boss, yep boss and work cover go over site together.
WC inspector watches as boss asks every individual do we need sheds ext?
Every answer is no.
On arriving to be informed work cover watch bosses and Foreman scream abuse at? me.
I tell WC and boss inspection must start again, me and useless idiot WC.
Boss stays in Ute fuming.
EVERY MAN on that job informed WC he was an idiot and DEMANDED WC standards, yes theirs on site.
WC thanked me a said he had learned something that day I doubt it.

Belly; can you help, it is raining we are sitting in the rain no lunch room no toilets no first aid nothing.

Where were they working?

How did they get there?

Surely they had cars they could have sat in until the rain passed.

Further evidence that we are breeding a society of pussies, not men, pussies!

Imagine if our brave soldiers who faught and died for what we have today had carried on like this.

God help us if a war breaks out here, as we have to rely on these pussies to defend us. Trouble is, once the paperwork is in place and all the safety checks have been performed, the war will have been lost.

Do they make porta loos and potrable lunch rooms in camo colours?

Speaking for myself, I contracted to both Telstra and Optus for over 10 years. In all that time, AFAIK not a single death was caused by electrocution, despite the literally thousands of people crawling in roof spaces and under houses, drilling into walls and through floors and ceilings and working on live power poles. Not a union in sight, although I was personally a union member (ETU/CEPU) for personal (and since much-changed thanks to that experience) philosophical reasons, rather than any benefit to be gained.

What was the difference? Firstly, adequate training was provided by the telcos. Secondly, there were no middle-men - all contractors were responsible for their own work and forbidden to subcontract to anyone else. Thirdly, the client was the telco, not the homeowner, which meant that if the homeowner wanted something done that was not safe, refusal was always an easy option.

The insulation debacle is a gross failure for the Union movement. Belly comes on here and tells us how he "saved" some wet workers from themselves; where was the union movement when the obviously inadequate training programs were being delivered to these poor young blokes? No doubt writing stringent new protocols to protect themselves from paper cuts or wet toilet seats.

Rehctub,

Don't be an Rs, an employer is required to a safe workplace with basic amenities by the OH&S act and the employees have a right to complain. While there are many instances of unions abusing the rights, this is not one of them.

Likewise, an employer needs to follow safety guidelines and required training for any task. Supposedly installation of roof insulation requires only basic training.

As far as Garret is concerned, his actions are reprehensible. He was notified by the electrician's union that there were legitimate safety issues with the installation of foil insulation, and instead of taking immediate action and stopping the use of foil he "negotiated" with the unions for a compromise that would not affect his program.

With the continued use of the foil, and the poor communication to the installers, it was likely that some of the installers would continue using metal staples and fatalities were highly likely. His actions circumvented the normal safety procedures, and if not protected by parliamentry priviledge could lead to criminal prosecution.

With the unions so tied to labor, it is interesting to see whether they will pursue this issue with the same vigour that they do with employers, or whether they will continue with the protection of their buddies.

The government's job is to remove all risk whatsoever. Since getting out of bed involves risk, I expect the government to bring me breakfast in bed every morning. After all, it's only my basic human right, properly understood.

When money is thrown into the air, as Rudd has been doing, and many governments before him, there is a rush to grasp as much of it as possible.

People lie and cheat, and not just the politicians, to get at this 'free' dosh.

Garrett no doubt was 'advised' to 'let it rip'.

That's is what the ALP and the Coalition believe in... the 'free' market, with no contsraints, or as few as possible without making it too obvious that tax monies are being handed to a few greedy, and in this case, dangerous, fools.

The insulation program, the green loans program, even the first home owners grant, all make problems worse not better.

Haste and politics drove Garret's failure.

His 'advisors' should be 'let go' even if he remains but it is clear that he cannot be trusted to run a chook raffle from here-on.

And for those bleating about 'our brave boys' we are always hearing how 'safety' is overlooked in the forces.... so do give it a rest please.

Why assume that everyone drives a car just to sit in if it rains?

The problem as i see it is the shortage of pink bats. So the insulators are using a product that was not designed for it's use.
The insulation is stuck to aluminium foil, then stapled down, consequently spearing the electric cables.
When my insulation went in it was pink bats ten inches thick, no aluminium and no staples.
I doubt if Garret would have known what dodgy insulators were using.
The insulating blanket used is for lagging, or the underside of roofing, not ceiling insulation.

Stange that New Zealand in 2007 banned stapples and also knew of the dangers with this type of insulation. So where was garrett, well just like at the moment out bush instead of meetings with the unions and electrical standards.

Also we are up to about 180 house firs from this scheme.

How can garrett sleep when beds are burning and people are dying.

It shows just how much a hypocrite he is and the unions for not ensuring appropriate training was carried out.

Garrett backed by rudd
Nothing from combet who now runs and hides instead of ensuring workers are protected.

Come on the federal election.

Shadow Minister: "He was notified by the electrician's union that there were legitimate safety issues with the installation of foil insulation, and instead of taking immediate action and stopping the use of foil he "negotiated" with the unions for a compromise"

So he is told by one mob "look - this stuff is dangerous". And they are probably right too. I get up in my roof, and the thought of having a conductive sheet over the light fittings gives me the willies.

But the insulation industry were almost certainly telling Garret the stuff is safe, and the electricians are just whining. There is a good reason to use aluminium. Aluminium bats are the most effective kind there is, with an astounding R6.4 rating. Just a single aluminium sheet adds 1 or so to the R rating of any insulation product, and its real cheap to do. And it isn't irritating like fibre glass, and aluminium bats are drop dead easy to transport because they pack flat. If the electricians do their job properly and wire the house safely, those 3 layer aluminium bats are by far the best to have.

So who are you going to believe? Remember the insulation industry been around for a long while. 2 of the deaths occurred while installing pink bats. They have been installing bats (pink or otherwise) for something like 50 years. Ever heard of any outcries over them being death traps in that time? Didn't think so. So here we have one set of tradies whining over what another mob had been doing for 50 years without apparent incident. And remember, insulation - particularly fibre glass, makes life rather unpleasant for the sparkies. It is enough to make anyone whinge.

In retrospect the industry obviously needs to pick up its act. OH&S is a state responsibility, isn't it? No doubt this will cause them to act. In any case, the industry practices had nothing to do with Garret. He was assured they were safe by the industry, and since there was no hard evidence to the contrary acted on that basis.

As I tried to communicate in another thread on the subject [Rudd and Garretts Incompetence Costs Lives], the problem goes way beyond a few crook jobs by some dodgy insulation installers.

The deficiencies that have already come to light should be red flags for everyone concerned that there are serious systemic problems in the home building industry. Sadly, both government and the building industry have a vested interest in keeping the lid on any attempts to drill down further to discover the causes rather than symptoms of deficiencies.

To take an example, in the last house we had built, the specifications required sarking to be extended to all exterior walls. However, later independent electrical inspection found that the electrical contractor had not installed the rear covers on power points in walls. This could easily have resulted in electrocution where the sarking came into contact with the exposed wiring.

This was only one of a number of problems. Why did we suspect there could be deficiencies? Well, because the rear of a power point within several centimetres of the ceiling access hatch in the garages was exposed- poor placement and no cover. The bare wiring was where anyone entering from a ladder would place his hand and someone nearly did.

Of course Garrett should resign, that is what the doctrine of ministerial accountability is all about. Any mildly competent risk analysis performed to support the minister's decision on the insulation policy would have identified the obvious risks in the building industry such as lack of available skills, poor training and supervision of work and even poorer QA practices (non existent). It is ridiculous to pretend that the government's inspection requirements would have been effective in countering any of the known risks.

Notwithstanding any of this casualness by the minister and his department, I have no doubt that the minister will continue to receive his high remuneration and his senior bureaucrats will get their usual bonuses.

Ministerial accountability? Not bloody likely!

Either one or two of the deaths were heat stroke on very hot days.
It seems to me that if the attraction for the fly by nighters was
even thought about, contracts should have been restricted to those
companies already in the business 12 months before the act.

Right at the beginning there was mention in the media about the danger
of placing insulation over downlight fittings.
However it is not just the fittings but the transformers.
I wonder if that distinction is being made even now ?

Don't hold your breath waiting for resignations, there were none for AWB, Reith's credit card or Children Overboard I doubt there will be any here.

The Government's insulation subsidy was not only deemed a boost to industry, as part of the stimulus package, it was also perceived a good environmental move.

The trouble with government subsidies is it is almost impossible to monitor effectively. It is also narrowly targeted - only certain industries benefit. Rorters come out in their droves, the price of the product goes up (this happened with rainwater tanks), there are problems with supply and finding skilled workers (hence untrained backpacker syndrome) and all the rest. This government has already been rightly criticised for good ideas and some good policy but failure in delivery, oversight and accountability.

The Howard government made the same mistake with Work Choices. They were unprepared for the number of complaints and the Workplace Ombudsman (as it was) was grossly understaffed and unprepared. This also led to the hiring of backpackers and young people with very little training to be able to man the phones and deal with the caseload, leading to inevitable problems.

The same is happening with the financial stimulus for school buildings. The irony is that the blowout in government spending has already led to budgetary restraints within government that will also affect the private sector.

It is happening in Canberra already including reductions in APS staffing in areas where there are high work volumes, meaning that public services (internal and external) are not being conducted professionally and in some cases failing governance. This affects not only jobs in the public sector but those whose jobs depend on the government sector, a snowball effect.

It seems that building and property development are most often likely to benefit from stimulus in this country (both sides of politics) despite the obvious needs to restrain the growth of our larger cities and interest in sustainability. It doesn't make sense.

Calls to charge Garret with industrial manslaughter however is going a bit far. Those charges should be laid at the door of the installers.

why the Government did not follow the lead of New Zealand, which banned the use of metal staples with foil insulation in 2007

We have another beaconsfield.
Labor and unions were quick of the mark about how the company knew there was a problem, and also the fact the unions did as well.

Labor and unions blamed the company for knowing and liberals for training.

So in fact this is labor policy
Garret knew of the dangers but disregarded them
Including about the NZ warning
Disregarded union and electrical warnings

Gillard said garrett could not be in every roof
OH i see
John howard could be in every workplace about aggreements.

Garrett must go
Rudd must go
Combet must go for inaction as the great ex union man.

This is labors incompetence and responsibility, it is up to them to stand up to take the blame but instead they are running for the hills.

Is it reasonable, now, given the fact that there seem to be so many problems with wiring in houses, that prior to an insulation person going up there, a sparky is required to give a clean ticket pass to the householder, and forward it to the installers business too?

Who pays? well, it seems that the ATO need to pay this since many people are already signed up to have insulation put it already.

And of course, it's another boost to tradies...if any sparky can be found that is.

If you're talking of crucifying any Minister
in any government we should look back in
Australian political history and charge
every Minister who in some form was connected
to any misadventure.

We can look at Prime Ministers, Ministers of
Defense, Ministers of Health, Ministers of Transport,
Finance Ministers, and so on. And we can continue
until we exhaust the whole Cabinet.

How many deaths in hospitals - because the PM or the
Treasurer, or the Health Minister withdraw funding
to hospitals? That one piece of equipment could have
saved many lives.

It appears that the current Opposition has no concept
in governance and tries to distract the voters by wild
diversions. This is common to all Oppositions - past
and present.

It's a shame that the rabble and hyenas tend to follow.

The responsibility of any works associated with buildings
is the responsibility of the local building department -
whose responsibility it is to inspect the work during
and after the installation - and its also the responsibility
of the owner of the installation company. It has always
been that way in this country according to the advice of a
highly respected and reputable architect.

>>The responsibility of any works associated with buildings
is the responsibility of the local building department -
whose responsibility it is to inspect the work during
and after the installation - and its also the responsibility
of the owner of the installation company. It has always
been that way in this country according to the advice of a
highly respected and reputable architect.<<

That's fair enough, Foxy, so long as the people doing the job have been adequately trained, the inspectors have adequate resources to do the job properly and the business owners do not have too heavy a compliance burden put on them. If the Government's rollout of the scheme effectively caused an overload on the "ecosystems" in each of these areas, then the Government is at fault too.

Put yourself in the position of those doing the work. And most of us have been there at some stage. If, as a worker, you're expected to do a lot more work with no extra resources, for example, should you be scapegoated for not having done the job to the same standard as you used to? If the Government was advised that a certain level of activity was dangerously lowering standards, and they went ahead anyway, then it's them who's is at fault.

Foxy,

"we should look back in Australian political history and charge every Minister who in some form was connectedto any misadventure."

There is a difference from "being connected" and being primarily responsible.

The legal term would be gross negligence / man slaughter.

If someone does something that causes injury through action or inaction where it could be reasonable expected that he would have known, then it is negligence.

If, however, the risk has been directly brought to his attention and he has proceeded anyway, then it is gross negligence.

I challenge you to find any other recent example of gross negligence by a minister (defense does not count).

Dear RobP,

You don't hire electricians, plumbers,
bricklayers, truck drivers, train operators,
who haven't been trained. That's the
responsibility of the employer, not the
Minister. The Minister's responsibility lies
with the allocation of funds to operators.

Nobody was pressuring the contractors to
undertake the work if they were over-committed
themselves through greed. They're responsible
for the consequences.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Ah yes, "gross negligence."

Try reading the following website:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1613092.htm

It may jog a few memories - from the children overboard
scandal to the AWB saga.

And how about sending troops into Iraq on a lie?
That Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of
mass destruction. Howard put Australians in harms
way for no good reason on the basis of a lie.

Then we have Australian citizens locked up or
deported.
Women and children locked up behind barbed wire.
An Immigration Department hearing its Master's Voice
and obeying with enthusiasm.

And the list goes on. How many died in the illegal
fiasco in Iraq?

Add to that deaths in hospitals through cut backs in
funding - when Tony Abbott was Health Minister.

The Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile - his suitablility
for the job was questioned after he gave evidence to
the Cole Inquiry Commission where he could not recall
reading dozens of cables sent to his office on the
oil-for-food contracts - the kickback scandal -
over 4 years. He was accused of "gross negligence."

Enough said!

Oh Foxy
It just shows how pathetic you are.

Garrett/Labor made the policy
Garrett/Labor disregarded the warnings even from unions
Workers put the insulation in under current legislation
Workers did not know the added risks that garrett/labor ommited.

And since you where going on about other items

How about the Heiner affair where labor and certain unions hid child sex abuse
hid child sexual assualts

So also foxy how many people died in the awb scandal
even under downer when he was immigration minister garrett was after him to step down but nobody died on downers watch

Not like garrett
or labor
I take it your house hasnt burnt down but since it is up to about 180 house fires now garrett and labor and by the looks of it you see this as colatorel damage.

These are peoples homes
these are peoples live

Labor and unions have acted incompetantely and this is a disgrace and for those here that are labor and unions well how can there be any respect when you say nothing.

Probably to busy at work sites telling people you are sorting it out whilst getting their membership money for labor.

Shadow,

How would you like the list? and how far back do you want to go?
It all depends on how you want to measure it.
Personally, I think that chrome dome's competence as a minister is something that need attention. However, "him costing lives" that pure Murdock media public spectacle lynch mob propaganda to sell papers to justify their pathetic pestilential, parasitic existence.
BTW the defense dept isn't immune from non conflict screw ups.

Foxy

You are right to demand comparison with the previous Howard government.

Your architect was wrong to share responsibility for building work among the installer, the local building department and the home owner and the whole thrust of government building regulations should inform him/her otherwise.

From the Master Builders' or HIA's home building contracts you will see that the responsibility rests with the builder. Your role is to pay, shut-up and stay off site until work is complete.

In connection with insulation, Bazz mentioned the danger of placing insulation over downlight fittings including the transformers. I can give the name of a Qld insulation installer with a Gold Card (builder's licence) and industry membership that provided a quote for polyester ceiling insulation without shielding for six downlights in three rooms. Having had a fair bit to do with trades, there is Buckley's chance that a crew will install products, in this case shielding, that are not provided for in the quote.

Where I am coming from is that there are well-known systemic problems in the house building industry and any risk analysis should have advised the government against implementing its home insulation initiative.

The biggest single cause of poor work is the extreme demand for housing caused by the government's unrelenting record immigration targets (Big Australia). Trades are not available. The cost of material sky-rockets and shot-cuts are inevitable. That applies as much to new houses as it does to initiatives such as the insulation grant.

The second problem is ham-fisted government interference (much based on political ideology, not sense) in education, specifically the previous technical colleges and apprenticeships.

The third problem is the continual stop-go nature of investment in residential construction through even more ham-fisted interference in the market through various tax changes and interest rate hikes. Surely there has to be a better way of addressing inflation than the blunt weapon of suddenly hiking the interest rates (and prices) for shelter.

A few people have mentioned the dangers of being in the building industry, even without this recent Rudd-ATO manna-from-heaven.

A friend of mine, who was getting his work logbook hours up to become a psychologist, worked for a drug-narcotics counselling line.

By far the largest single group of people to come for help were contract building workers.

Long hours, stiff competition for work, all contractors with no security beyond that job.... these people were living off drugs to keep going.

Good for cheap labour, and steep profits for developers.

Perhaps this is why WHS is such an issue on building sites?

The economic system that we all so love, free enterprise and 'who dares wins', coupled with the bi-political objection to any regulation of anything much (beyond lawyers rorts perhaps...and newsagents, and chemists...oh, there are quite a few rorts still in operation aren't there?)adds up to a dysfunctional workkplace for many of us.

Employers always dominate the drawing up of regulations. One only has to look at truck/bus driving to see how dangerous the allowable hours are.

Instead of requiring 'economic' rates for carting junk all round the nation, it's far easier and cheaper to force long hours and rely on 'competition' to cripple entire families, who are then 'cared for' by the state, just to ensure the Chinese/foreign junk we all buy gets to the warehouse-shops as cheaply as possible.

And so it is here too.... cheaper to sort out a few 'inconvenient' deaths and houses burning down than it was to design a decent programme that delivered a quality outcome.

It would be interesting to see exactly how Greg Hunt and Tony Abbott would have designed this system, what with their 'free enterprise-no regulations' outlook on life.

A bloke truly becomes humbled to read the response to my tome.
Reading through the comments –

It is especially good to see practical comment from those connected with industry – as workers and as customers.

I note that there was even a Marie Antoinette – not to have them eat cake – but to have workers just sit in their cars.

Stap me!
What cars?

I’d like to continue by mentioning that since I first wrote my tome Mr. Garrett has revealed to me something of his nature.

Firstly, after temporary cessation of the recent ‘TitStorm’ massacre of our government webpages I found Garrett’s pages.
This person appears not to want direct communication – certainly not E-communication.
Such is his view of the paperless office!
Then, today I discover that he could not make a date to meet with those affected by the workplace health and safety issues we discuss here.

While I might support the principle that every group in society has a right to representation – even posturing vocalists in a rag-tag band – that such posturing idiots later protected by parliamentary privilege who refuse to speak with stakeholders should maybe quit and give those who do care some opportunity to repair the damage.

Peter Hume wrote:
"The government's job is to remove all risk whatsoever. Since getting out of bed involves risk, I expect the government to bring me breakfast in bed every morning. After all, it's only my basic human right, properly understood."

Hehehe! Well said Peter. It's all that needs to be said :)

Sorry but I need to divert the thread.
Look at the other thread on this subject.
See the taunting and note I Have been followed here, taunts and all.
Unions? the answer to every question can not be both yes and no.
Post work choices IR laws do not give unions power to change anything in this area.
Comparing contractors to telstra ones is, come surely madness?
Those who installed satellite TV so many more had very substandard training if any.
Anti woman haunts me with references to a union I want nothing to do with, blame for much of the movements bad press.
Rechtub? you have found a friend but not me.
IDIOTIC fellow your comments overlooked it was a road construction site 4 inches of greasy mud, steep batters ,footpath on top inch's away, cars parked 100,s of meters away.
Law NOT UNIONS COMPEL BOSSES to provide those things.
rechtub, it was my intention to HIGHLIGHT work cover, the very group who should have overseen the training, the installation process, but only got involved after deaths, under ANY government is useless.
You, TAPP, antiseptic show ignorance and bias in your posts.
Straws anything to get at Labor, fact remains truth has value and Australia needs more workplace safety not sitting in cars in the rain because red necks think lunch rooms are not manly.

I am truly reluctant to engage in verbal tennis with TAPP.
He has however strolled on to the court, table tennis bat in hand and confronted me.
Take note, he blames the member he confronted at the last federal election, in his every post.
The man he confronts beat him in that election.
Has zero to do with this matter.
Defense is his portfolio.
See Tapps insult to foxy, unable to take return serves he often does that.
Room exists to be very critical of workplace safety, state/federal governments every one of them, fail us all, both sides.
But if I as a unionist complain about safety, mud and no sheds, red necks scream insults.
Up the thread it is said deaths included kids and heat stroke pink bats not this new one.
BELIEVE me cash drove bosses to use kids untrained people in dangerous places.
under stand,,,, no risk is involved in new installations.
crawling around roofs that may have had poorly installed or even altered wires is dangerous.
TAPP get well bloke I truly hope you can.
Remember this, it may help, a good man does not hate because he is hated, I dislike your actions but truly wish you well, return to reality bloke.

Belly:"Comparing contractors to telstra ones is, come surely madness?"

Not at all, since the work environment is identical. OTOH, Telstra and Optus, for all their faults, insisted on stringent safety protocols, informed by their experience over many years. Telstra is a highly unionised workforce, while Optus is not.

Those who installed satellite TV were given the same training as any other staff of those telcos and it paid off with a very safe outcome, aided by stringent policing of installers' field procedures by the telco supervisors. Any incident resulted in a full safety analysis.

Belly:"anti woman"

Oh dear. Feeling under pressure Belly? Time to pull out the old dog-whistle eh? No wonder the CFMEU in WA can barely get enough members to hold a game of euchre. Never mind belly, you've got a "job for life"...

The fact remains that the unions had and have the ear of the Government but they did nothing. I wonder if that might have been because they were determined to show up that upstart Garrett? After all, there were "good unionists" who could have been parachuted into Kingsford-Smith and it's not as if any of those likely to get killed would be unionists...

Dear Cornflower,

Kindly re-read my posts.

It appears that your premise is that all problems
stem from the government - and we have no responsiblity
for our own actions.

Whereas in my view a business that employs staff is
responsible for the safety of the staff (work place
safety). All the authorities do is set the standards and
regulations under which the employer should function.

As far as the roof insulation is concerned - it is the
responsibility of the contractor or his supervisor
to insure that it is a safe working environment for
his staff. We have been seeing on TV advertisements
for work place safety - and in those adds its crystal
clear that it's the employer who is responsible and not
the government.

Examinator,

One or two comparable incidents would be fine. (please not a litany of bureaucratic bungling as that is not comparable.)

Foxy,

I'm not talking of questionable decisions about foreign policy with 20/20 hindsight (and often bipartisan support), I am talking about bad / deadly decisions made with full foresight.

Labor's accusation of Vaile for the AWB scandal was baseless. If Vaile had meetings with the AG or anyone on the issue and overrode them then maybe it was comparable. A handful of correspondences to his office amongst thousands indicating queries that is filtered through several layers of underlings only indicates that if his office acted on every correspondence then he might have had some inkling.

Inuendo does not count.

Both of you are so fixated that Labor can do no wrong that you are blind to its faults.

Dear Mr Tapp,

You accuse me of being pathetic?

Well Sir, if I indeed am - then I have
people like yourself to Thank for it!

It's unfortunate that politics splits out
communities and creates unnecessary tensions
when a clear and logical mind would resolve
the problems.

Foxy, the compulsory training that was provided under the government's program was manifestly inadequate. Should every employer have second-guessed the Government and implemented a more stringent regime? what if the employer was himself a recipient of the training? How is he to know that the training is not up to scratch?

The employer's onus of responsibility in this case is lessened by the fact that Government regulation was in place that mandated certain actions which later turned out to be inadequate.

I in the paper this morning that the CFMEU is trying to milk the situation for some publicity while desperately trying to distance themselves from accountability, despite being a key part of the Steering Committee which designed the training.

No doubt they were focussing on the key issue of making sure the installers didn't join some other Union...

Antiseptic: "the CFMEU is trying to milk the situation for some publicity"

On the radio this morning they said these are the first foil insulation fatalities in Australia. The previous 50 years had been fatality free.

I also heard there were insulation contracts going around to rentals, knocking on the door and saying they were there to install insulation. The tenant says OK, of course. The insulation is installed. The first the owner hears of it is the tenant reporting damage to the ceiling by the installers. Signature on the paper work is faked and submitted for the rebate.

It is, in other words, outright fraud. Presumably the perpetrators will be caught and prosecuted in due course. You could wrap the entire thing up in paper work to try and slow down shysters like this, but I suspect it is just cheaper to catch them after the event and let everybody else do their job efficiently.

In the mean time existing installers with a good track record are taking the opportunity to say it is too dangerous to allow anybody but them install the stuff. When it was pointed out home owners have been installing this stuff for years without training apparently without ill effects, he said that should be banned too.

And finally, the first of the electrocuted installers was a sparky. The guy had already had 4 years on the job training. He is supposed to know how to install and maintain electrical wiring in the presence of insulation. The second recent one was a sparky's offsider. The CFMU might well call for more training for its members.

So yes. It appears A lot are making hay while the sun shines, I think.

>>No doubt they were focussing on the key issue of making sure the installers didn't join some other Union...<<

I saw Dave Noonan of the CFMEU giving a TV interview where he looked pretty glum and like he didn't want to be there. Maybe he always looks like this, I don't know.

But the feeling I was picking up was that the penny might have dropped with the union that it was in a pincer. On the one hand, it wants to stay sweet with Garrett, but stick up for those that died. So, they opted to criticise the practices of companies that didn't do the right thing. Yet, it was the CFMEU that was part of the steering committee that was supposed to sort through issues of training and regulations etc.

Maybe Noonan was glum because he recognised the CFMEU didn't have any clothes on.

The facts are clear
Garrett disreagarded the warning
Garret disreagarded the unions

Garrett is accountable

Its that easy

Just like beaconsfield, the mine bosses knew of the safety problems, the unions knew of the safety problems.

Now why did the unions allow these workers into the mines
Why did the unions allow these workers into these roofs when there was a safety problem.

With Combet was he not the workers saviour so where is he, why is he not standing up for the workers.

Belly you are a union rep you should be able to answer these simple questions.

As i grew up union and labor as my father was the secretary for the ASE and also the presedent of the trades and labor council in Orange, I know what the responsibilities are for a union rep but nowadays is gone.

The facts are clear Garrett and the labor government are at fault and as we shall soon see with the litigation that is starting with this issue to the deaths and the destruction of homes, the labor party will pay for the deciet.

If you cannot get your head around the facts then why post.

Oh and another thing belly i am not chasing you, I am making comment on those issues that need to be commented on as those who should comment are to gutless to face the issues of their party being in the wrong.
I do not care which party you are from but those who have made the stand a pronounced there obedience to their parties, say nothing i will comment.
And yes i will be running as an independent at the next election.

Tapp, I'd be surprised if a single roof insulation installer was a union member, before the manna-from-heaven, or even now.

'The union' as you call it, cannot prevent anyone from doing anything, ever.

They can only provide advice.

There are many instances of workers ignoring their own best interests in order to earn money.

That's what,for instance, a 'dust allowance' in a mine was for, payment for offsetting increasingly poor health.

Truckies ignore all sorts of safety rules, to keep earning a quid, but the TWU does not support taking drugs or over-driving hours.

The Beaconsfield case, presumably, was about earning a crust or being sacked, as it always is.

If workers protest about their conditions, politicians, the media and other workers, like to characterise them as 'commos' and 'bludgers'... we are our own worst enemies.

However, Garret is clearly a total dill, but what of his so-called political advisors? No doubt from the rightwing of the NSW union movement, aged about 23, never struck a blow in a job outside of a union office, maybe with a degree in politics and a desire to sit on red or green leather above generating a better life for 'the wurkers'.

The new breed of politicos from all sides of politics, careerists with no ideology at all.

Garret, after all, was just a tired popstar with loose political affiliations who was looking for a something to do, and the ALP gifted him a seat in parliament.... what would he know about ideology and principles?

As for the departmental gurus who have 'advised' him.... it's unlikely they would ever have run anything like this programme before in their lives, and hopefully never will again, whatever it is for.

With any luck, they'll be on a Howard AWA still and Garrett can sack 'em on the spot before he gets the chop too.

Antiseptic,

For the record, Telstra is no longer "highly unionised". A large proportion of their technical staff are labor-hire contractors or still working under AWAs that were renewed just weeks before the cut-off date.

Safety is given a very high priority within the Corporation as a matter of policy and is not driven by the Unions.

I don't know what safety training FoxTel employees are given but the majority of satellite installers are contractors operating as private companies - like plumbers and electricians.

Other than technical training and accreditation, absolutely no safety training is provided by the companies they contract to. It's a personal responsibility. Contractors are only obliged to carry Public Liability Insurance - not individual personal coverage.

The mandatory use of personal harnesses while working on roofs was introduced as an industrial requirement only a few years ago and nothing to do with any union or company directive.

Shadow
>"Fixating that labor can do no wrong"< .....Bollocks! Sorry mate, what both of us seem to be saying that if it came to the spouse of one of the deceased suing, they would sue the homeowner or the employer/supervisor maybe the purveyor of the dodgy product,depending on specific circumstances.

To hold Garret personally responsible at this stage is unsupportable and politically motivated.
You me Abbott or the man in the moon has no idea what contrary advice he was given, what investigations he put into train etc.

There is merely circumstantial evidence , at best, of bureaucratic bad decisions. As the minister, he has potentially political responsibility for the department, to go the next step is simply a bridge too far at the moment.

So if you don't mind I wait for real evidence before digging in my shed for a rope or a firing squad.

I would point out that everyone including a minister of the crown needs to be proven guilty in this country first before execution. damn it!

Despite opposition's hypercritical political chant "We love the smell of a ministerial lynching in the morning".

Finally bureaucratic cock ups are usually the flaws anyway. Disasters are usually a confluence of several factors.

Ex,

With all due respect, the insulation program has very specific standards and requirements that the contractors have to meet in order to be able to claim the subsidy.

The contactors were not in any position to change the material or installaton methods, which is why the electrical union approached the minister responsible to get the standards changed.

That they representation from the electrician's union, and a similar thing occurred in NZ two years ago (to which he was alerted) should have been more than just a wake up call.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/15/2819613.htm

Having documented evidence of what can happen, and an expert body reafirming it, would require extraordinary evidence by another reputable body to the contrary, that what ever caused the deaths previously had been rectified.

There is no evidence that Garrett had any such "super" solution to justify his reckless and deadly decision to maintain the status quo, which he alone had the power to do so.

The evidence that it was unsafe was available a year ago, and Garrett has yet to show anything to the contrary.

Under the OH&S act one has to show that one took all reasonable measures to provide a safe work place. Garrett did the opposite.

Shadow Minister: "Having documented evidence of what can happen, and an expert body reafirming it, would require extraordinary evidence by another reputable body to the contrary, that what ever caused the deaths previously had been rectified."

Would "no fatalities in 50 years of installing foil into roofs" quality as "extraordinary evidence"? I suspect it would.

Despite the ruckus here, fatalities on building sites are not exactly unheard of. There is roughly one a week, on average. So not having any in 50 years is pretty good, suggesting the installation of foil installation is a pretty safe process when done correctly. Banning it is a bit of a over reaction.

Obviously the industry had developed some pretty robust OH&S safety practices over the years, and evidently they haven't been codified so they are passed onto newcomers. The right reaction now that there is some evidence of that is to codify them.

Your propensity to hurl accusations and abuse at Labour at every opportunity gets tiresome at times Shadow. You aren't a one issue man. You are a one eyed man, and you have that eye firmly fixed on the left side of politics looking for any excuse to throw the next salvo. I still find myself wondering at times if you aren't a paid part of the liberal party flak machine.

TAPP A HUGE difference exists between a union official and a delegate, you should know that.
No union can compel contractors to do anything, mostly they are fire, unions water.
Antiseptic, you should read,,,understand,,, others posts I am no CFMEU supporter, believe me.
You must never have worked with your hands, only your post is more lost than rechtubs.
Do you understand telecoms usually works at floor level not in the roof?
Training has ALWAYS been of great concern, not just here but the workplace at large.
Soon I leave home after one hours break, I did the same last night.
I will conduct inspections of night road work.
Dangerous badly lite and sign posted jobs, the boss, very much like you, uninformed and unaware of his duty's will swear and abuse me ,but his crews will go home in the morning.
TAPP your attempts to thrash me because my union/Labor views are not your dysfunctional ones is evidence My view of you need not change get well.

wobbles:"Other than technical training and accreditation, absolutely no safety training is provided by the companies they contract to."

If that is the case today, then things have changed a great deal. When I first started as a sub-contractor to optus, Optus operated a facitlity at Acacia Ridge in Brisbane that included a mock-up house and was designed to give novice installers a comprehensive suite of safety and work practice training.

When I moved to Telstra, the head contractor was required to provide job safety training and did so via regular briefings and supervisory visits. Job safety analysis forms were required to be completed prior to any work being done and could be asked for at any time. Safety and job-specific gear was inspected by Telstra regularly.

As you say, sadety harnesses/lanyards became mandatory for roof work some time later, after there was a death due to a fall and had been mandatory for pole work the whole time.

My point was, however, that as you have pointed out, this was not because of the union. When the union was asked to be involved, it ran a mile.

In this case, the unions were involved from the start and look at the outcome.

Sadly, the unions have become little more than platforms for would-be Labor members to build a profile.

Belly:"Do you understand telecoms usually works at floor level not in the roof?"

Oh dear....

Belly, I installed telephony and bradband cabling for 10 years. Would you like to have a technical discussion about it?

Your beloved CFMEU dropped the ball badly, probably for petty political reasons. What is it going to do about it?

Shadow minister, I've followed this fairly closely and I can't recall the ETU/CEPU being mentioned. The noisiest concerns were raised by the NECA, which is the employer body. The ETU here in Qld has been too busy making sure Bligh doesn't get re-elected.

Did garret mean to cause harm no.
i went to one of the biggest manufactures of insulation in the country to get mine, and was told i would have to do it myself, because i had already used up my rebates on solar power and solar hot water.
So i bought the necessary ingredience and done it myself.
I am glad i did now with this bull--t going on.
My batts are 10 inches thick, with no aluminium. [and i don't have down lights ]
If you are going to have down lights make sure they are 12 volt controlled from the power meter. [ no short cuts ]
It's dodgy installers that have caused the problem. not garrets ruling.
People that have no idea of what goes on inside a ceiling.
After lunch the temp inside my ceiling measures around 60 celcius, Thats with a thermostat controlled fan cutting in at 35 celcius That should say something.

Rechtub? you have found a friend but not me.
IDIOTIC fellow your comments overlooked it was a road construction site 4 inches of greasy mud, steep batters ,footpath on top inch's away, cars parked 100,s of meters away.
Law NOT UNIONS COMPEL BOSSES to provide those things.

Yes belly sounds similar to the diggers on the 'kakoda trail'. Difference is, they weren't being shot at!

Ever heard of an umbrella, or a rain coat!

Poor buggers would be turning in their graves if they could see how 'limp wristed' our men have become.

Little wonder we are filling up with immigrants. They are happy to have a roof over their heads and a job.

As for Foxy, not wanting step on any labor party dicks, the fact remains, the minister was warned and ignored the warning and now four are dead!

Heads must roll, just as they would if it was a private company in charge.

Belly, why was the union movement not involved to prevent these terrible, avoidable deaths?

Antiseptic you have not even followed this thread!
Once more just for you.
I am not a fan of the CFMEU, go to their web page.
Read the introduction MILITANT UNIONISM.
No you just must not lay that on me.
How did they get involved, it is not their coverage.
Surely it is electrical trades work.
rechtub I have been forced to admit trying to talk to you is like riding a mountain bike without wheels.
Lot of peddling not going any place.
Facts, telecoms /optus do train well, big firms mostly do.
The people doing this work are small, money not safety drives them.
Very rare if at all to find a union member working for them.
Now think on this, some say it is Garrett's fault because he did not act on Union concerns others say it was unions fault because they did not stop the whole thing.
Are we talking about the heat stroke death? poor wiring, maybe home done wiring, do you antiseptic understand installation in new homes has not been a problem?
Last night I found a shift working crew, the gang had a trained OHXS man in place.
His boss runs 8 such teams, for reasons I will never understand HE REMOVED all elected to that position, then put every team leader into that roll.
No election, no compliance with the act.
Do I blame him the boss? the ex rep, the new one,
Well the old one was re elected last night the boss is so lucky no one died before law was restored anti every thing you flog union for being unions then flog them again for not being unions.
How can I judge you?
You fail to see modern workplace safety is infected with poor training and regulations slothful supervision and cost cutting bosses yet call for removal of a minister?

Belly:"I am not a fan of the CFMEU"; "How did they get involved, it is not their coverage."

Actually, it is their coverage, since it is a construction activity. Each home is effectively a separate building site. I see the spirit of demarcation is still strong. Perhaps that explains a bit more about why the Union movement is so on the nose.

Did I tell you what we used to call the AWU when i was a member working at the North Gonyella coal mine development? Australia's Worst Union...

Belly:"Surely it is electrical trades work."

Well, I guess it IS electrically conductive. Best tell the Metalworkers to go join the ETU/CEPU, eh?

Belly:"Very rare if at all to find a union member working for them."

Or, to pit it another way, they're on their own as far as the Unions are concerned. So much for "Workplace safety should be our number one priority" http://www.awu.net.au/200_11_1.html...

If there's no money in it the Union's not interested.

Belly:"some say it is Garrett's fault because he did not act on Union concerns"

But it wasn't the Unions who raised concerns, it was the employer bodies, such as NECA and the Master Electricians Association. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/garrett-knew-of-insulation-death-risk-for-months-20100213-ny4b.html

The unions, especially the CFMEU, were part of the steering committee that made the decisions that lead to the deaths.

[cont]

Belly:"Are we talking about the heat stroke death? poor wiring, maybe home done wiring, do you antiseptic understand installation in new homes has not been a problem?"

The heat stroke death was the result of drinking insufficient water. Part of the training process should be to warn people that they need to drink at least a litre of water an hour under those conditions. Did the steering committee (which included the Unions) insist on that?

I'm not sure what your point is about new vs old homes. I've worked in new homes that were basically death traps, with wiring laid on top of steel framing, which the homeowner has then laid plywood on to form a loft; no separation at all of electrical and data/telephony cabling; tiny roof spaces filled with huge amounts of pine framing leading to very restricted access. I've been stuck in a roof because of being unable to turn around and had to remove tiles to get out.

Yes, old houses sometimes have substandard wiring, but no matter how new the place, if you stick a nail through foil and into an active wire you've got a problem. How much was this emphasised in the training that the Unions were part of drawing up?

Who stands to gain by Garrett's demise?

Rstuart,

Prior to the last elections I was appalled with Abbots refusal to allow the approval of the abortion drug and his blocking of stem cell research and said so.

However, for the last couple of years Labor has had an almost exclusive control over the state and federal government, and having almost exclusive power over implementation means that the c*ck ups are exclusively theirs. Their short history is littered with broken election promises, dubious economics and failed policies.

I am some what sceptical that there have been no safety incidents in the last 50 years, however, that foil insulation prior to this program made up only about 2% of roof insulation in Aus, and this programme has installed more foil insulation than in the last 50 years might have something to do with it,

With all the news chaff of the recent events I am struggling to find any history of foil installation prior to this year in Aus, but have found many instances of electrocutions in NZ, Canada and the USA in very similar instances. If you have evidence it would be useful to provide the link.

It remains that there was plenty of prior evidence globally of the dangers of foil, and it is interesting that Garrett has yet to release the risk assessment done for the program, and the senate enquiry should be interesting.

Who stands to gain by Garrett's demise?
Antiseptic,
most likely the whole country !

Shadow Minister: "If you have evidence it would be useful to provide the link."

Sorry, I don't have one. I recall hearing it from someone who sounded like they would know on the radio.

I did go looking for accident rates myself for that "one building site accident week" statistic I quoted. That was from a newspaper article. I was hoping for something more authoritative like ABS stats, but as you say with the chaff around all you get in the top 20 hits is the same news story, almost word for word, repeated over and over again. And of course, as is typical of the newspapers there are no citations you can follow up. They really are dinosaurs in some ways.

I guess we will part ways on the Rudd performance. Labour has done its fair share of things I think are brain dead, like the internet filter and Rudd's fanning the flames in the Henson saga. But they are perhaps minor in the scheme of things. His openly stated stance on population is far more serious, but the only difference I can see is has actually said it whereas Howard had the good sense to keep his trap shut on the subject.

So there has been nothing stellar, but nothing disastrous that would not also be done by the Libs. You of course think they have done horrible things financially. I don't necessarily agree with what they did, but they did follow what seemed to be the majority advice from the experts and really that is all I ask. Pity they aren't doing the same thing on the Internet filter, for example. Or Euthanasia. Or lots of other things. But either they aren't too serious, or I suspect the Libs would have the same policy.

As for broken promises - they all break promises. What's new? In fact Rudd seems to be doing more than usual to keep to promises - even making lists, ticking items off, and publicaly saying what hasn't been done and why. Again, what more could you ask?

RS

Rudd has been very specific in which promises he broke.

Until recently labor's approval ratings were so high that he felt he was bullet proof (as Howard did in 2005) and felt he no longer needed the support of the wealthier progressive votors and reneged on the promise not to introduce a means test on the private health tax rebate, and others, which while pandered to the union base, brings in little revenue and leaves a large chunk of voters feeling excluded (myself being one)

Then he goes overhoard with the fiscal stimulus which alienates those who believed his promise to be fiscally responsible.

He then proceeds to demolish the immigration policy that was so effective in stopping the boats (which had an 80% approval rating mostly amongst the working class)

Now finally, we have Garrett who was parachuted into a labor ministry and whose inexperience has handed the coalition "proof" that labor is careless with the lives of young employees, which with their domination of the senate, they are going to publically crucify Garrett, and by extension labor.

The coalition is building up another classic wedge for labor. Rudd can either show that his ministers are accountable and worker safety is important by dumping Garrett (and his umbilical cord to the greens) or be portrayed as paying lip service to workers well being.

The 2010 election was labor's to lose, and the way the polls are presently, it looks as though they are shooting themselves in the foot with both barrels.

Shadow Minister: "The 2010 election was labor's to lose, and the way the polls are presently, it looks as though they are shooting themselves in the foot with both barrels."

You have said this a couple of times before. Once was when that rouge poll said the Libs were running ahead of labour, and the other was when the Oceanic Viking was in the news. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but both seemed as gleeful a pronouncement on Labour's imminent demise as this one is.

The press have already grown tired of the Garret issue. It is gone from the front pages. Unless the current inquiry yields something contentious it is gone for good. It is unlikely to yield something contentious because OH&S is simply not Garret's responsibility. This is pretty much what Abbott said initially until they decided there might be votes in it.

I have got to give you guys some credit of course. As soon as Abbott did his u-turn you die hard Liberal supporters were onto the issue like the baying hounds from hell. Fortunately for Rudd, you will forget it and go silent just as quickly as the newpapers have.

Antiseptic I am a rough diamond, an old but bold one.
Never[still] walked away from a fight.
But never started one.
You and I at first did not cross swords every time we came across each other.
We played on the same side of a few issues.
your rudeness, insults to my union are noted.
Do you understand they mean nothing.
That you show lack of understanding with every word.
The CFMEU would like to control such installation, sure given the very real danger electrical training took place.
that union will climb on any ant hill to be heard but how could they cover that industry.
you use the insults they throw at me often, but do not understand my membership is often refugees from them.
I will not be silenced on the issue, in my opinion my personal and private one they do more harm than good.
Garrett has nothing to answer for, in my view he never should have got his seat, a far better man did not get his local members did not get the seat and member they wanted, but your disjointed attempts to throttle him are silly insult away but ask your self this, will you pretend your views are right after con men installers badly trained kids and lack of understanding bought about these workplace deaths
do you know how many die on construction sites needlessly every year?

Belly, you say 'Garrett has nothing to answer for'

So, are we to assume that you also say that the directors and managers of the Beaconsfield mine also have nothing to answer for?

Very similar situation hey!

So tell me, where would the lunch/rest room have been placed at the road work site.

I assume close to the cars. If so, they would have had to walk some 100m to use them.

What is the differnce?

Unions have done a lot for the workers however they have also done a great deal of damage as they just don't know when to stop pushing.

The building industry is full of contractors because unions simply made it to difficult for bosses to employ staff directly.

The building industry may be full of contractors but I think it's mainly due to them being a cheaper option for building companies than maintaining a full-time staff and not just due to union involvement alone. Unions are mainly involved in wages and working conditions - particularly workplace safety.

A problem is that as they drive the prices down, the contractors have to cut their own costs and take as many short-cuts as they can. Rising Insurance costs and other overheads make it difficult for contractors to maintain profitability while prices being offered are also going down.
In order to make the same amount of profit as before they have to do more work in the same amount of time and the only way to do this is to do it cheap and rough.

Employee-based workplaces assume that nobody has any common-sense when it comes to safety. Nobody polices contractors until they are investigated by Workcover or Comcare until after an accident has occured.

rechtub can it be you have learned more than me about construction from behind your butcher shop counter.
Have you any ideas of your own?
Those references to Tassy mine disaster are from TAPP.
And have zero to do with this thread, how do you link them.
Please find a link to the near daily death of a truck driver, in his factory, his truck, on his factory floor the road.
Tell me why work cover in all its names, never investigates that workplace death.
Sit in cars to eat, have wounds dressed fill in time sheets, rechtub!
That work site was 3 klms long.
Cars are not allowed on site, must park out side.
Can you think, for a second, I have any respect left for you?
Sorrow yes but respect, it is gone forever bloke.
In my minds eye I see a country red neck, just like two I saw blessing mad Joe, in the year he stopped Howard winning an election those two blind foolish men did not understand they helped Labor win.
AUSTRALIANS rechtub never ever share you views wait until the election and find that out.
Go back bloke, we all should, re read your posts and know why I find you lost.

belly:"your rudeness, insults to my union are noted."

As are your rudeness and personal insults to me. It cuts both ways, matey: you might be able to walk onto a worksite and pulll the high and mighty Union Man act, but here you stand and fall by your words, not who you know.

Despite all your bluster, you know damned well I'm right about the reasons for Garrett being hung out to dry by the CFMEU (with the apparent happy consent of the AWU, if your own words are anything to go by).

You also know that the other major construction Union, your own AWU, has been conspicuously silent. You say "surely it is electrical trades work", yet your union made no effort to have it only done by electrical trades, did it? After all, if it all went wrong, the CFMEU would take the fall. You also know that the ETU/CEPU didn't make any noise at all, leaving the hard work to be done by the NECA and the Master Electricians, neither of which are Unions.

This case and your responses illustrate all that is wrong with the Union movement. Buck-passing; arguments about demarcation; attempts to sidetrack genuine discussion into dead-ends; deep loathing between unions who supposedly have the best interests of workers in mind; petty politicking for the advancement of would-be politicians like Howes and nepotists like Ludwig. http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/Factionalism.html

No wonder you're finding it hard to get members.

Belly:"con men installers badly trained kids and lack of understanding bought about these workplace deaths"

There is no evidence that any deaths were caused by "con man installers", but a lot of evidence about the inadequacy of training that was endorsed by the Unions.

Rstuart,

"The press have already grown tired of the Garret issue"

Apparently not:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/spin-and-silver-tongues-cant-hide-an-empty-morality-20100217-odtm.html

"Spin and silver tongues can't hide an empty morality

In all his shouted, grinning pronouncements about the program that has killed four installers, sparked at least 86 roof fires and electrified an estimated 1000 houses, Garrett resorts to impersonal lawyerly gobbledygook"

Each time there is a labor c*ck up the polls dip and bounce back, but never to where they started.

A year ago labor was riding high and threatening double dissolution at each senate vote. Now there is silence.

Abbott was certainly far down on my list of preferred liberal leaders, but he is certainly the pit bull they need now.

Did you antiseptic see that line in my post, about that union?
Can you read between the lines and see why I said it.
Apart from the fact I truly believe it.
My contempt for thugs and mugs in union shirt s is real and forever.
You put a word picture of such a union man on me, I am no such thing.
I exist because of my true contempt for the comrades, the very left threatening idiots who got all unions blamed for their actions.
Who dislike our firm but honest attempts to talk issues out with bosses.
Not entering their offices shouting, questioning the wedding of his/her parents and kicking the waste paper basket over.
See we are not able to freely say what I have, but we know it is true.
And in my view you know, most know it is unlikely even one of these installers, yes not one, is/was a union member.
Trade in truth, look just a glance, at Garrett and you will find much to be critical of, but dragging this dead beast into his lap will not work.
And my insulting mate, know I am me 24/7 my members say at least you sit with us, talk with us, not to us.
That other mob?strutting up and down the lunch rooms comrades and brothers this and that like bantam roosters crowing then leaving full of self assurance that is miss placed and only the sounds of news hand outs going into the rubbish bins follow.
Strangely mine are saved on every table read and re read?

OK, so Garret's a bit of a dick, but now he's an experienced dick. The labor government is full of these people, who have never done anything practical, or managed something practical, in their lives.

Chuck out Garret, & what do you get? Thats right, another clean skin dick.

Unfortunately, at great expence to some, Garret now knows;
1/ You never trust public servants to do anything, without oversight.

2/ You never expect them to get anything right, first time, [or second, or third], without lots of help.

3/ You never expect them to do anything quickly. Six months is like tomorrow to them.

4/ They are more interested in not doing anything, than doing it properly. Not getting it wrong is more important than getting it done.

Now lets not waste the lives lost in teaching him these lessons, & replace him. Lets put him to work.

He will never again implement a scheme without adequate oversight, & will never again trust some public servant to do a job. He now knows that's beyond them.

He's not as dumb as most of them. With this knowledge, gained at such cost, he might just become a worthwhile minister.

We should learn from this, not to put people in jobs, where they have a passionate interest. It leads it leads to sloppy thinking.

So Bellt since you havnt answer the question about garrets actions or i should say inaction are the same as beaconsfield, and we should look at hardies

They also knew but did nothing.

So when it gets down to it you will run and act just like these pollies

Change to a nother subject.

When you decide to answer tell me.

Also my father being the secretary for the ASE didnt sit in his office, he was speaking to shop stewards the workers and bosses making sure they where listening.
He was the secretary
the union rep
the union official
When email went on strike on several occasions the other unions would look for him as if the ASE wasnt going out on strike then they didnt, but when the ASE went on strike everybody did, now that is respect.
He was there in the mud in the rain, and was always there for the worker, no matter who was in government.

Belly, you just keep digging a hole, don't you.

You say the work site is 3 km long. So, just how do we get the 'lunch/first aid/ and toilet room to the workers. Is it 'remote controlled' and follows them along. Just curious!

You are a crack up mate. I almost get a 'belly laugh' pardon the pun, when I read the stuff you post at times.

Perhaps you can re-write the award and include an opporator for the 'mobile dunny' at all road construction sites hey!

So how is your mate doing, buring the 'midnight oil' I would suspect hey!

Let's chalk this up as yet another failure of the 'Dudd brigaide'.

I just hope they have a few more 'stuff ups' on their agenda cause who knows, they may just loose badly enough after all hey!

Hasbeen I agree! with every word! gee we may just be getting kind to one another.
Son of a trade union boss and a trade union/Labor man, I am surrounded by two bloke who do not know.
Who seemingly unhappy about dads now gone want to destroy the union movement brick by brick
TAPP, sorry not worth other than this, you are lost, in need of help and I having seen those bizarre election hand written posters will no longer respond to you.
Rechtub, in just a few posts my view of you has change,
It is you who dig that hole, insist on digging it and looking at it as an achievement.
Road construction jobs work in NSW under an act policed by unions and work cover.
Get amenities at work sites a free government document, get also construction amenities.
Such a construction site, home for workers for up to 12 hours a day , and 6 some times days a week has laws.
Yes often won by past generations of Unionists.
But written and enforced by laws.
Just before a meal break those eating, some stay and eat later, are picked up by Utes driven by foremen and leading hands, and taken sometime a long way.
To portable sheds lunch, toilets, first aid to eat in comfort

Those moving on to such a site, even the truck based lunch salesperson have to be inducted site safety is controlled.
Usually three groups of sheds exist middle, bosses offices training rooms and meal rooms each end and while toilet shed exist so do hot smelly plastic porta loos.
Consider this rechtub, your lack of understanding is not a mark of Merritt, you constantly insult road workers using jingoistic references to our soldiers,
How CRIMSON LOW DO YOU WANT TO GO?
My first construction union delegate was a little battle scared bloke mumbling away in Japanese.
The loverly bloke still brings wet eyes on thinking of him, was a prisoner of war, ending in Japan.
Refocus rechtub, see others point of view, understand ,know this I hate Rudd rubbish will still see him returned.
The cynicism but truth in hasbeens post is an acceptable way to complain but you have strange views on an old Aussie mantra I still value +Fair Go Mate+

Belly:"most know it is unlikely even one of these installers, yes not one, is/was a union member."

So that makes them less worthy of decent training? There will be much more about the union role to come out of this. Garrett was a Rudd pick, not a "natural Labor candidate" who had been part of the Union movement and the Labor machine. You commented earlier that "a better man missed out" or something similar, which I think says it all.

Having worked in civil construction for years, for almost every major contractor, I have seen the Union men come onto site and I know what happens - nothing but bignoting and interference with a bloke's work. I've never seen any improvement in conditions as a result of union action, because conditions were always set by the awards. Smoko huts, ablutions blocks, etc have mandatory requirements under various acts in different states.

In a different field, I've been involved in organising a strike with Union backing, organised for a non-unionised workforce to become members of the union to get that backing, then had the union tell us a whole bunch of lies to get us back to work, including that the employer had agreed to terms, when they had refused to do so.

I despise the Union movement as a self-serving rort for a few. Once I was a dedicated union man... The unions have noone to blame for the change but themselves.

Hasbeen, I tend to agree with you. Moreover, I reckon Garrett was set up to fail by the unions.

OTOH, it really has been an appalling case of mismanagement and tends to underscore the reason for Rudd being so obsessive about micromanaging his Ministers.

Hasbeen,

What you say is dead right for about half of the Public Service, IMO. There are plenty of people there that are more interested in not making a mistake than in actually doing anything useful.

Having said that, there is a very diligent and useful side to the PS as well. But strictly only in the context of being an adviser, bookkeeper and data and information collector/repository to and for the Federal Government. They are most certainly not capable of doing audits on electrified roofspaces any more than you or I could design a space shuttle. And when they try to run external programs from within the bureauacracy, it never works because they are just not in the right cultural setting to understand everything that's required to make things work.

As you've correctly said, it's the fault of the Minister for assuming the PS could do this (if, in fact, Garrett has done this at all.) My guess is that Garrett was used as the salesman for the program which is mostly owned by the PM's Office.

But, what's the solution? As events have shown, a big influx of Government money into the market equals a big influx of scammers and shonks. The answer must be to slow down the pace of the rollout and spend time getting the foundations of a more robust system of checks and balances in place. Trouble is, this is generally not sexy, is invisible to the public and therefore won't be rewarded at the election.

Ironically, this scandal may actually help the Government politically if it can be seen to iron out the bugs in the system and still deliver a good outcome for householders. However, it won't be the Government that actually delivers this. It will have to come from the industries themselves. As usual.

RobP

You say this:

"However, it won't be the Government that actually delivers this. It will have to come from the industries themselves. As usual."

The usual response from industries is to demand that the government 'cuts red tape', which is probably how this pathetic situation comes about- a total lack of regulation and licensing and a total reliance on the free market.

It is, after all, 'the industry' that has so poorly served the householders and taxpayers isn't it?

And this lesson has still to be learned further afield, in banking and all the 'funny business' that passes as 'productive trading' that caused, along with greed and stupidity, the GFC.

Instead of learning that where money is concerned, especially 'easy money', there can be no room for total deregulation, we seem to believe that it's all fixed and we can get back to where we were.

Through Rudd's desire to look good, buy votes and be seen to support 'green' issues, he has instead brought havoc to thousands of peoples lives who are burdened with both good and bad 'inch-u-lation' (why do commentators refuse to pronounce the word correctly?)and now I hear that insurance companies are going to refuse to cover houses with it.

Will 'the industry' be fixing that I wonder?

Whther it is green loans, inch-u-lation, or school chaplaincy funding the Commonwealth Government has failed in each instance to devise a working plan that delivers something positive, without harm.

These schemes swiftly morph into scams, all of them, and become ever further from the best intentions that might, just might, have been behind their genesis.

Mostly though, they are mere political window dressing...oops!, almost forgot the NT invasion, what a scam that, 'surprise surprise', turned out to be.

Sadly, the government has caused this failure, and only the government has the money (ours) to fix it, so it will not be 'industry' that resolves it, but, somehow, government.

>>Sadly, the government has caused this failure, and only the government has the money (ours) to fix it, so it will not be 'industry' that resolves it, but, somehow, government.<<

Blue Cross,

Somehow? Howso? I made the argument that Government simply doesn't have the wherewithal to do the work. That's a fundamental truth. Maybe I'm too idealistic, but that only leaves industry - in the truest sense of the word - that can fix the problem now. The Government simply can't micromanage everything going on in the economy.

Your argument is basically saying that industry is corrupt. If so, then what can Government really do? Uncorrupt them? Tell them to do it properly or else? Jail a few of the worst ones and then watch as someone else just takes their place? It looks like a real mess no matter what anyone does or tries to do.

The only way out of this - I think - is joint leadership of the problem at both a government and industry level. And a new paradigm to go with it. Don't ask me what that means, though.

In my view Hasbeens post stands out, it is word perfect and quite true.
Antiseptic thanks, truly ,you know the cat with the mouse is always happy, be still it will be over in a second.
I stood in a group one day and watched Latham, you know the bloke don't you?
He told us, unionists, he had parachuted Garrett into a seat.
Not Rudd, anti.
Unions carry no magic wand, no key to Cabernet, no assurances we will be heard.
Those who are said to have warned Garrett are the same ones who fight for wages rises for those on minimum wages, most nearly all are not union members.
My union all unions are allergic to shonky contractors, we would stamp them out.
if we had the power WE DO NOT, SOMETIMES WE ARE NOT EVEN HEARD.
Back to Hasbeens post it highlights the real world, not the rat bag ideas unions despised by those mentioning them, did not act, hands behind backs feet tied they could only warn.
Garrett in fact any minister is about two weeks behind in advice given while the air wasting public servants look first for ways to conceal Truth.

Belly:"Those who are said to have warned Garrett are the same ones who fight for wages rises for those on minimum wages"

Not as such...

The NECA is the National Electrical Contractor's Association, which is the employer's body, not a Union and the MAster Electrician's Association is likewise not a Umion. The Unions sat on the steering committee and did bugger all.

Now, I don't care whether it was Rudd or Latham who was responsible for Garrett's pre-selection, what's important is firstly that it wasn't a Union and secondly, that you remember the event, because that means it was unusual, to say the least. It also means it wasn't the AWU's (Bill Ludwig's) choice; who did you say stands to gain by Garrett's demise?

The Unions, including the AWU, stink to high heaven on this. Garrett is nothing more than a patsy.

Antiseptic are you trying to display rudeness or lack of understanding?
I have spoken before about taking responsibility for our statements here.
You defame Rudd for appointing Garrett then lightly skip over the fact you got it wrong.
Forgiving your self for,,,, not being right.
How much more is wrong.
Are you so unaware you think A Queenslander had any control or looked for it in a NSW federal seat?
Are you not aware every trade union in Australia saw and heard Latham.
That I , wrongly believing he has the man he claimed to be for a time followed his road trip.
And for the same reasons as unions those who represent this industry did not want the shonky contractors to do the get the work.
How do you think it is any different if bosses unions act like workers unions.
You are fishing in a dry dam, if you cared that much about Garrett you would look at is real problems not try to flog a very dead horse.
Australia votes soon, sooner than most think, your blindness to reality will be shown in the results.

Belly:"You defame Rudd for appointing Garrett then lightly skip over the fact you got it wrong."

Oh dear, belly...

There is no defamation, old chap, but you confirm with every post how right I am. Who cares whether it was Latham or Rudd, neither of those blokes were Union picks either, were they? Which good "Union man" missed out on a nice little earner in Kingsford-Smith?

Do I think a Qlder had any control over the selection in NSW? Well, let's face it, matey, Rudd insisted on executive control, didn't he? He got caucus to endorse his right to pick his own team, didn't he?

Have a look at the career of Joe "couldn't run a chook raffle" Ludwig for some idea of why the AWU let him do that...

Belly:"How do you think it is any different if bosses unions act like workers unions."

So now you're admitting that the unions dropped the ball and the employers had to pick it up.

About bloody time.

In considering the failure of the insulation intervention, I suggest that Garrett's first mistake was;

assuming all private business would conduct itself ethically and responsibly...

and

not listening to union representatives when many of the new businesses (created as a result of the money incentive) failed to act responsibly.

What do you think Belly?

Severin:"not listening to union representatives when many of the new businesses (created as a result of the money incentive) failed to act responsibly. "

There were no "Union representatives", there were representatives from the NECA and the Master Electricians, which are employer groups.

The CFMEU was a key member of the steering committee that approved the scheme, including the training and the fact that it was going to rely on small contractors.

The AWU was nowhere to be seen until it was obvious that Garrett was already in trouble, while the ETU/CEPU has still had bugger all to say.

I agree sevin and highlight the post from Hasbeen above, no Labor man but quite right.
Antiseptic is getting quite animated, usually he reserves that for his anti Woman threads.
Now lets get down to it, in print here I have long ago questioned Garrett's appointment, and his foot in mouth attitude.
He was appointed by mad mark Latham, and would have entered the house in time to be part of that mudslide.
He was forced on his branch, any true Labor person would be sickened by that, I was.
Unions had no power to stop public servants being as useless as the proverbial, its in their D and A to fail, under any government.
Who do we blame for road deaths, truck driver deaths on their factory floor, why are no work cover investigations taking place.
Law, not union, says EVERY EMPLOYER HAS A DUTY OF CARE TO HIS WORKERS.
16 years old? climbing under a roof?
antiseptic we you I every one gets it wrong.
It is human nature to try to hide that we did so, but it Is a manly and a tool to grow to say yep maybe I am wrong.
you got it wrong bloke and are now trying to blame me for it.

Belly as you say:

<<<< EVERY EMPLOYER HAS A DUTY OF CARE TO HIS WORKERS >>>>

Dare I say, more government regulation to ensure worker safety as opposed to that preferred by laissez-faire capitalism of no regulation?

Probably not. But I've gone and said it anyway. And for me that has been the crux of this entire mess; that Garrett implemented the scheme too quickly, WITHOUT DUE CARE, is true, but what is not being discussed is the onus on the employer.

Belly:"EVERY EMPLOYER HAS A DUTY OF CARE TO HIS WORKERS."

Speaking of getting animated...

By complying with the rules set by the Union-dominated Steering Committee, an employer fulfilled his duty of care. Can you prove that any of the employers of the people who died failed to comply with those rules? How?

By allowing substandard training to be provided for petty political reasons, the Unions showed they care more for the political ambitions of some of the elite top echelon than for the lives of workers.

You should be ashamed for trying to defend that.

Belly.. this thread is getting to be a very poor show.

I am a unioniist, I resigned from the ALP when I realised that it was not intersted in 'the national interest' at all, any more than any political party is, and I have had my own run-ins with employers BUT... lets be a bit honest.

Sure, employers have a responsibility to their employees... but employees have a responsibility to themselves too you know.

And that requires them to work out what is 'not on', and to not do it.

I am well aware of the pressures to do what is not safe... but to work in an unsafe manner is a choice.

I am happy to blame bosses.... but there is always another story too, whatever the imposition of 'do it or you'll get the sack'...

This goes directly to the organisation of families and schools.

We teach people to obey without question... in religious groups they call it 'faith'... in the post WW2 trials they called it 'war crimes'... researchers observe a willingness of people to obey and conform even when it is clear they or others are in danger...

I've been a union organiser myself... and I found that far too many people were complicit in their own problems by failing to challenge anything that went on about them.

We need to teach people to think, challenge and act... and work towards having a self sufficient, intelligent, self activated workforce, be they 'boss' or 'wurker'.

Unions would be better employed by reorganising the education system, and teaching their members how to challenge authority... including how unions are ruin.

As a population, we all need to reject the clowns that pass as politicians today, and start demanding some reasonable level of intelligence and performance from them, and from all 'leaders'.

It is far too easy, particularly with the low grade 'meeja' we suffer from, to be raised to Messiah status, yet still have absolutely nothing to say...like Rudd and Abbott both.

The Blue Cross union delegate? member or official what one?
You should be aware if you have been any of the above casuals are disposable human beings.
Unable to say anything or they get no work.
Unions, all of them run a just say no!
Unsafe? do not do it program.
Workers under pressure constantly do dangerous things they do not want to.
Union dominated? those people blaming unions are the same who constantly say unions have too much power.
And did any of you get those phone calls?
The schemes was haunted by shonks like the roof painters who do not paint, tilers who are criminals and people offering me money back if I let them sign me up.
Have you anti tried to talk to a Polly? far worse than the I will check to see if he is in lie.
Public servants a group who exist to do nothing defend their ministers from truth.
as recent history shows some defend any one from truth by telling lies.
Garrett has no union protection, well a few may like his music, he is not hiding behind us , he has done no less or worse than dozens of useless beggers who both party's refuse to dump.

Belly, I note that you did not answer my simple question: do you have proof that the employers of the people who died were acting outside the rules established by the steering committee?

Belly:"Garrett has no union protection"

Yes, we already established that unlike Joe Ludwig he doesn't have a Dad who's got his very own Union and that there was a "good union man" who missed out on a safe seat because Garrett was parachuted in.

We've also already established that the Steering Committee which was responsible for setting the rules of the rollout, including the training requirements, was Union-controlled.

4 people are dead and dozens of homes burnt down because those rules were obviously inadequate and the Unions are running a mile, leaving Garrett, as both a Latham pick and an outsider (a natural Green, really) to take the fall.

Nice politics, shame about the ethics.

Belly...."The Blue Cross union delegate? member or official what one?"

All three, and in a few unions.

"You should be aware if you have been any of the above casuals are disposable human beings. Unable to say anything or they get no work.
Unions, all of them run a just say no! Unsafe? do not do it program.
Workers under pressure constantly do dangerous things they do not want to."

Indeed Belly, being a casual is a dogs life...which is why employers like employing casuals, so they can be disposed of when not needed.

This is why state governments employ so many casuals in schools and hospitals, and why 70% of university staff are casuals with no career prospects, and many months without work per year.

People just like to moan about unions, whatever they do.

But we all have choices to make, and those who choose to do clearly dangerous work, or perhaps better out, choose to work dangerously, are still making an active choice in the matter.

Saying 'no' is a very liberating experience, and not enough people have the courage to try, was often my experience as an official.

The Blue Cross,

>>I've been a union organiser myself... and I found that far too many people were complicit in their own problems by failing to challenge anything that went on about them.<<

Spot on.

>>We need to teach people to think, challenge and act... and work towards having a self sufficient, intelligent, self activated workforce, be they 'boss' or 'wurker'.<<

Ditto. This goes to changing the culture - an absolutely necessary precondition to sustainable, positive change.

>>Unions would be better employed by reorganising the education system, and teaching their members how to challenge authority... including how unions are ruin.<<

Agree, so long as it's not left up to some intrepid bloke and his dog to take on the system. It has to be done in numbers or not at all.

>>As a population, we all need to reject the clowns that pass as politicians today, and start demanding some reasonable level of intelligence and performance from them, and from all 'leaders'.<<

If blogsites like this one and TV shows like Q&A are anything to go by, people are starting to quite stridently question the decision-makers. The most important thing is for individuals to think originally and creatively and thereby illuminate aspects of the problems out there that pollies and policy makers have not seen or thought of before. If people's participation is even from across all sectors of society and all vantage points, you get a well-balanced go-forward dynamic happening. You then solve two major problems: lethargy that allows problems to develop in the first place and lumpiness in application which causes hurt for people sideswiped by the positive actions, or attempts at action, of others.

Workers are being trained, after the death of work choices delegates are again being trained.
How many know union safety training was outlawed under work choices.
Every day, believe me, I give handouts post wall posters and re enforce the view safety first.
And until you have been a throw away human, a casual you do not understand what pressure is, stand up for safety, your rights, even personal protective equipment yours free by law and you have no job.
As TBC shows in sight in every post antiseptic shows only blind bias and a failure to know reality in construction.
Unions sitting on peak body's never insured they would be heard, here, in this thread proof exists they called for changes but it never came.
A reasonable person would not discount the truth or doubt it.
poor training from bad bosses bought about these deaths.
Tell me some one you anti worked for who would send kids into old roof cavity's to die, tell me you doubt money meant more to some than worker safety.

Well Belly

the boss for this scheme was the labor party

so they are responsible

they are the ones in government

they are the ones who make policy

They are the ones who created this scheme

for those who do not see that which is easy then are not looking for the truth but just passing the time.

Facts belly Facts

TAPP you are aware, I do not value your comments.
And that I do not wish to talk to you.
You remember that information, not true but passed to another contributor about my work place.
How it was used to try to harm me at work.
I believe mate you are not aware just how much you are out of touch with truth reality and that Aussie mantra &fair go mate&
No flexibility in your posts, again and again you give your local member a serve, yet he in no way, at all, has anything to do with this subject.
I understand if I stop replies to your rants, you may go away, that those who have not seen you around are finding reason to ignore you.
But your insults to my whole life, my whole reason to live, the union movement, a better more responsive movement can not be ignored.
Look at the time, know soon I start a 270 klm trip each way, to visit workers who are my mates, no strutting bantam rooster here bloke.
I will be glad to see them, they me, mates, you insult your dad ,his history in unionism is noted your lack of ability to see, to remain linked to the real world is noted too.
But I while sympathetic to your problems can never respect you, ever.
Your facts mate are untrue, not in any way honest your vendettas are however.

belly:"Unions sitting on peak body's never insured they would be heard, here, in this thread proof exists they called for changes but it never came."

Well, I must have missed that proof, Belly, perhaps you'd be so kind as to point it out to me?

I note that this morning the CFMEU is still trying to distance themselves and the Union movement from Garrett and at last they're discussing safety. Perhaps this thread wasn't a waste of time after all.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/govt-to-spend-10m-to-retrain-axed-installers-20100221-omxv.html

"The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union said the government must now ensure that safety was the number one priority under the new scheme."

Must NOW ensure that safety is number one priority? What about before, when they were in charge of the steering committee that wrote the rule book?

"Mr Noonan was reluctant to be pulled into the question of Mr Garrett's future in his role as environment minister.

"It's construction workers, our members, that suffer when people die in the workplace, and one government minister quitting ... is not going to make any difference to that," he said."

As I said, Garrett is nothing but a patsy for the political aspirations of "good union men" and the dead workers are just "collateral damage".

It's a disgrace and you should be ashamed, not defending the scum who let it happen.

Belly:"poor training from bad bosses bought about these deaths."

No, poor training from a Union-designed training program which all installers were supposed to attend caused these deaths.

You still haven't answered my simple question: do you have any evidence that any of the employers of the dead workers failed to fulfil the requirements of the Union-controlled steering committee?

It's a simple enough question, isn't it? How about a simple answer?

Belly:"Tell me some one you anti worked for who would send kids into old roof cavity'"

Telstra, Optus, Communications Networks Australia, Australian Broadband Cabling, Phone Systems Australia, University of Queensland, John Holland
Working in ceiling spaces is hot and it is hazardous in terms of electrical wiring, but it was Union-approved training that made it fatal.

Oh, i forgot to mention ABB, Areva, Downer EDI and Comet Communications.

I'll let you know if I can recall any more employers who routinely send people into old roofs to do work. Of course, none of them rely on the union-mandated training that the poor dead insulation installers did...

RobP (sorry-part1 of 2)

I'd like to think that shows like Q&A were helping to forge a new awareness within the electorate, but I suspect that is not the case.

I've pretty well given up watching it, because a) the politicians on it simply fail to understand how they reinforce the perception that they are liears, dills and 'avoiders', so clearly they do not believe the audiences are requiring anything different, and b) the ABC sticks on dodgy 'personalities' who frequently have nothing useful to say at all.

It might be time to put some 'ordinary Australians' on instead, plucked at random from the street.

We might then see better why and how politicians have no need to moderate their behaviour or improve their thinking.

The dispute between belly and atispetic and others seems destined to go nowhere though.

Whoever designed the training is not the underlying issue. The scheme might have been well intentioned, but it was not designed to work. And I do not mean that it was designed to fail, but that it was poorly conceived and clearly not policed at all.

Those involved in the work have a responsibility to themselves to work safely... those employing them have a duty of care to ensure they do, whatever the standard of the training.

The weight of power falls with the employer, particularly when casual work is involved, or there are no 'unfair dismissal' rules in place.

People can and do, do unsafe things inadvertently in the workplace, and the home for that matter, and particularly on the road. That seems to be a fact-of-life.

So, one hopes that workplace training is good, and is conducted properly. However, I see in my local paper that this is yet another industry, with Cert 2,3,4 training given out by all manner of people intent on making a buck.

All complying with national training standards no doubt, but I'd guarantee there is a vast difference between suppliers.

Driving schools produce new drivers, who have to pass a standard test, but how many are actually 'safe' when they drive out alone?

part 2 of 2

Training is just that, training, and it is a bit naughty of antiseptic and others to blame belly and 'the unions' for the training not keeping people alive, or house undamaged...that seems to be a very narrow and partisan perspective to take.

Garret has halted the scheme...at last..thankfully. Now I hope the legitimate insulation installers and green loaners who paid a fortune to buy a job sue the Commonwealth for the damage they caused them. And maybe insurance companies need to keep insuring householders and start suing the Commonwealth for houses that burn down.

Litigating these matters is not the best solution, but it might be needed to prevent future governments from using these scams to buy votes.

Belly might want to ponder the work of the country road council worker, who fills in potholes in poorly serviced roads every time it rains, or the harvest is underway and overloaded farm trucks roll down tearing up the scant spraypave road surface. A job for life, never achieving a new road, always patching up damged sections.

Such is the role of the union delegate and organiser. Being on-demand to resolve issues is a reactive, old style, form of unionism, destined to fail if 'improvement' is the objective.

Of course, if the objective is to maintain the position, the status quo, then it works well.

Our education system fails to teach any form of creative thinking, preferring instead to uphold the coercive imposed top-down form of training. It is here that we need to start training people, workers and so-called 'bosses', to think rather than react, or worse, not even react because they are so scared of losing the job.

The Blue Cross:"Whoever designed the training is not the underlying issue. The scheme might have been well intentioned, but it was not designed to work. And I do not mean that it was designed to fail, but that it was poorly conceived and clearly not policed at all."

tTe Unions have had 100 years of experience with workplace safety; they designed the training and the rules by which the scheme would be delivered. It was all done the way they wanted it done. How then was it "poorly conceived" by accident?

Garrett has made it clear that he relied on the Union-controlled Steering Committee to make the decisions which he rubber-stamped. No amount of sophistry will hide the fact that he was very foolish indeed to do that and that people have died because he did so.

Employers have obligations, which they would have been reasonably entitled to believe would be discharged by ensuring they complied with the rules, which were specifically written for this project. they were not generic "the employer is responsible" rules, but mandated certain actions, including specific training programs. They have now reverted to a more laissez-faire approach via removal of the scheme and reinstatement of a true user/service provider model, which makes employers properly accountable, both for proper completion of their contract with the owner of the property and for properly ensuring worker safety.

Until you or belly or anyone else can show me that the employers of the people who have died were breaking the rules, I'll continue to hold the Unions to account.

The Unions want themselves to be in the position of handing down received wisdom and never, ever questioned. They want Garrett gone, after he's been made use of as a shield to hide behind. most of all, they want a "good union man" who's "paid his dues" in Garrett's nice comfortable seat.

Antiseptic... we may be at cross purposes here, so hold on a moment please.

The insulation and greenloans schemes were poorly designed by the public sector employees who were charged with the task of creating a working system.

They were poorly conceived by the minister and his political advisors,more likely Rudd and his office political-honchos.

I honestly have no idea who 'designed' the safety aspects of it but some underlying assumptions must, or at least should, hold true.

That it would have been based on current industry practice is probable. Which has so far proved to be reasonably safe? I do not have that information.

This in turn would be based on state/territory legislation as well as the overlying requirement for all employers and employees to activate their 'duty of care' to themselves and each other, irrespective of any legislation detail.

The unions do not control those matters but they are actors within the state/territory arenas, as are employer unions-you do include them in your overarching term 'unions' I assume? And also industry bodies that tradies join.

It is pointless to point the bone at one group above others here. The policy was 'well intentioned' but hopelessly flawed in its design and application-sin enough for Garret to go.

I doubt that Garrett 'meant' to design a flawed system though.

I also doubt whether anyone employed by the new rush of employers was a union member, so they would not have been aware of any direct union advice-but here I am guessing only-you may have full details of the thousands of employees who were members of the relevant unions.

The quality of some, maybe many, firms engaged following the Garret scam-launch seems to be highly questionable. I see in my local paper a previously convicted house thief seems to be running an 'insulation' company... one accepts he may be reformed after jail, but he may have just seen a vacuum and filled it too.

You demands for 'proof' from Belly are unreasonable and undeliverable from his side. OLO is not a 'proof' forum, the courts deal with that.

The Blue Cross:"You demands for 'proof' from Belly are unreasonable and undeliverable from his side."

Then he shouldn't have made the claim. I can back up my assertions with facts and the extrapolations as to motive flow from those facts.

The CFMEU was a key member of the Steering Committee which was responsible for signing off on the Scheme. Neither they nor any other union raised any concerns, officially at least, about safety or any other aspect of the scheme. IIRC, the Unions were very gung ho for the scheme, on the basis of job creation.

It was left to Minter Ellison and the employer bodies to raise concerns about safety. Garret has already said he didn't see the ME advice some 10 months ago, so who did? The Steering Committee and the Unions, perhaps? Who made the decision not to advise the Minister about it? Why?

Belly has made it clear that the Unions are not on Garret's side, which was obvious. It's not a big leap from there to letting him become a patsy for a disaster.

The Blue Cross:"I also doubt whether anyone employed by the new rush of employers was a union member"

So it was OK for the Unions to mandate inadequate training that left them vulnerable? The training wasn't a matter of personal Union advice, but a regulatory requirement, so whether they were union members or not, they would have been in the same boat.

No one doubts there were some fly-by-nighters, but I've yet to see any evidence that they failed in their duty of care to their employees. They may have performed inadequate installations, but that's a different issue and may come down to inadequate training and product knowledge as much as anything else, unless you're suggesting criminality, of course?

Given the large number of new start-ups, there should have been much more support offered, or it should have been tendered to a large head contractor, just as was done by both Telstra and Optus during their HFC roll outs and is still done for their home installation work.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-modern-moses-with-beliefs-set-in-stone/story-e6frg6zo-1225832747955

From the link,

>>It is humbug to suggest - as Garrett continues to suggest - that his scheme has been laid low by the machination of shonky operators or the negligence of half-trained operatives. Patently, there would have been no fly-by-night insulation firms and no army of semi-trained labourers in the first place but for a decision to throw billions of dollars of public money, holus-bolus, towards the creation of a new and for all practical purposes unregulated industry without any apparent concern for the consequences.

Nor is it credible to blame the existing safety standards of state governments when their creators could hardly have imagined the industry would grow 30-fold within a few months.<<

This pretty much sums up the error the Government made. You can't grow an industry that much without causing major flooding of some kind within it. In this case, the negatives were the multiplication of fly-by-nighters, scammers and rorters and a general decline in industry standards. It was a green light for any mug and his associates to whack a few batts in the back of the ute and peddle their wares to a largely ignorant public. These rorters were given unofficial licence by the speed of the rollout. And, as the originator of the political decision, the Government is responsible for everything - both good and bad - that ensues from it.

Antiseptic please never refer to the CFMEU in those loving terms, once after my union dropped the ball, they controlled all construction.
For a time, yes I truly think it, unions lost the plot, about the time it was not law you had to be in a union.
Some could not make the change from service providers to true mentors and mates in the workplace.
The Blue Cross, you have come to the right bloke.22 years filling potholes, being in charge for the last 8 years and union delegate for every day.
It gives me the greatest personal pride, that I as senior RTA delegate got 40 klm speed limits inti NSW work sites,
I met a SA union official, he told me of that states laws, while sitting as a delegate on that groups peak body I demanded we get it.
My union held seminars fronted ministers, antiseptic if only you could have been there.
PUBLIC SERVANTS FOUGHT IT nearly beat us, still ignore safety, but we fight on.
I sit now in my old chair on that peak body, as an official, I fight brick walls , defense for defense sake, listen to hours of safety clap trap, words thrown at workers not swapped.
Aseptic have you seen my often shown disdain for Simon Crean?
ex ACTU leader ,yet you make claims Garrett has my protection/union protection?
I like his music, have seen all his actions and he in my view is as useless as Crean but not guilty here.
very much doubt your ex employers did not train much better than some criminals who got these jobs.
My long day has seen a union in action eating with one crew listening to all 5 of them, and servicing them often.
your view of modern unions is flawed.
TBC do you know RTA funds workplace police controls radar the lot, but fights union constantly because?
We demand, and will get, portable speed cameras on EVERY ROADWORK SITE.

Did you have a few beers last night before you posted, Belly? Or are you just doing your loyal union best to confuse the issue?

If you actually read my posts, far from suggesting that Garret is the Union's man, i've suggested that he's so much NOT a union man that they were prepared to hang him out to dry.

I note that you've still not been able to back up your claim that these deaths were due to shonky employers failing to follow the rules established by the Union-dominated Steering Committee.

How about it? Just show that one of the employers of the dead workers was not following the safety rules and I'll shut up about it.

I see that Rudd has stood up for Garret and taken responsibility for the debacle.

He also said the following:"Mr Rudd said the office of the co-ordinator-general worked with the environment department during the program's implementation.

"I'm advised that ... no safety concerns were raised, I'm so advised," he said."

Just to remind everyone who might have forgotten, the Steering Committee that approved the scheme was Union-controlled.

Antiseptic I do not believe any union had control.
Steering committee?
If Rudd, Garrett,any Labor Polly, let a union run this show prove it to me.
Yes it wasted cash, our money, governments do that much better than do it once do it right.
Yes some real products of unwed parents fed on that cash.
Both good contractors and bad won work.
Yes unions do try to get involved in workplace safety,
A union I am aware of invents such issues and turns them into clubs to wack bosses.
At the coal face, at the point of installation, just before these deaths, training or not, the employer under law held a duty of care to his workers.

remember belly you,labor the unions blamed liberals for beaconsfield when in fact it was the unions who did not ensure their safety was ensured.

This is now labors problem and as dudd rudd said, the buck stops with him.

Now you can keep blaming the employers but as we already know that would just make you a hypocrite.

Once again the tarps are pulled over to conceal the wretched state of Australia's construction industry and the home owner, the vulnerable stakeholder with bugger-all lobbying power with the government, will continue to wear the risks and costs.

What is damned unfortunate for home owners, whose homes often represent their greatest single investment of their lifetime, is that government regulation is so poor that cowboys and fraudsters can thumb their noses as they choose at the weak requirements of Building Code and Australian Standards because builders and tradesmen are under no legal obligation to comply. So much for government's concern about building.

The HIA and Master Builders are the builders' trade unions and if anyone wanted to challenge 'unions' for the shoddy state of home construction why not start there? However, be aware that they do seem to have the ear of government and they are big advertisers in the media. Now, where is that risk analysis again, Mr Garrett?

I leave the thread, it has to be, TAPP unable to get people to post in his spite filled threads has found me here.
And I must not continue to answer him.
For the forums sake, if not my own.
It is not debate TAPP seeks but a wall to write his unfocused and untrue verbal grafeetee on.
No well thought out claims just the thoughts of some one unable to see other than a lost distorted view.
I do not idly say this bloke, you do you know, need help, not based on your posts here but your actions in real life.
Play your games but I will leave yet another thread rather than be that wall you scribble on.

Ah yes, Ministerial responsibility ...
" An obsolete superstition that Ministers
were responsible for everything that went
on in their department. Ministers were expected
to resign if one of their public servants made
a serious mistake.

Australians are far too pragmatic to pay any
attention to this archaic ritual of the
Westminster system. In the British Parliament
too the practice is now obsolete though loudly
proclaimed in the hopeful rhetoric ("Resign!
Resign!") of the Opposition parties."

(Dennis Pryor, "Political Pryorities: How to
get on top of Australian Politics.")

Belly:"Steering committee?
If Rudd, Garrett,any Labor Polly, let a union run this show prove it to me."

From the LABORNet website:"CFMEU Construction National Secretary Dave Noonan said the union had raised concerns about the level of training around the scheme through its involvement in the government's Home Insulation Scheme steering committee."

http://www.labor.net.au/news/1265983614_12500.html

According to the PM yesterday:""I'm advised that ... no safety concerns were raised, I'm so advised," he said.""

So, Belly, is Kevin Rudd a liar, or is Dave Noonan a liar?

Where was the AWU, BTW? Was old Bill Ludwig too busy making sure that young Joe "couldn't run a chook raffle" wasn't part of the mess?

Foxy

Why quote a journalist who was trying to be entertaining and controversial when there are fact sheets produced by Parliament and there are many debates on the subject recorded in Hansard? A few seconds Google should turn up Fact Sheets that refer to the inherited conventions of Westminster - not mentioned in the Constitution though because it was taken for granted that all would be aware of the inherited Westminster system of government. Federal and State systems show some flexibility (eg Qld's is unicameral) but never a rejection of the model.

Are you saying that Rudd doesn't think Garrett should resign because he (Rudd) doesn't believe in the convention of ministerial responsibility?

Why it's all Peter Garrett’s fault?

http://newmatilda.com/2010/02/24/beware-shonky-operator

<<< A: ...ministerial responsibility, a bedrock of the "Westminster system". This is a system named after the famous Westminster Abbey, under which ministers who preside over unfortunate events are respectfully buried under the floor. As many of his political opponents have said in recent days, Garrett is a fine, decent, honourable man, and it just kills them to have to call for his resignation — they can hardly see the dispatch box through the tears — but unfortunately ministerial responsibility means he must....

....The problem is that Garrett rushed the insulation rebate scheme out far too hastily, with insufficient oversight and lax safety standards. For example, he waited 10 months before asking to see the report into the risks of the scheme...

...But then there’s the matter of metal clips used to fasten insulation. He took far too long to ban these, and scrutiny of the official regulations reveals that at no point did the Government make it clear to installers that metal can potentially conduct electricity. Without this vital piece of technical information, they were flying blind — it’s like asking someone to fly a plane without warning them that at some point they will find themselves airborne...

...Most of all, it’s a case of shonky operators. Garrett did not make allowance for these. When setting up the scheme, the Minister totally neglected to insert a clause specifying that operators should be non-shonky.

...he did not make it clear that installers who completely ignored the rules would be in breach of the rules, and this of course was like a red rag to a bull for shonky operators. It’s a matter of psychology: shonky-operators crave structure and boundaries. If Garrett had simply said, "This scheme is not for shonky-operators", they would have respected that, and sorted themselves out. But left to their own devices and completely unaware that gross violations of safety standards were not allowed, the shonky-operators ran wild with their shonky ways. And thus, tragedy. All because of Peter Garrett and his fatal lack of anti-shonkiness. >>>

Severin,

True, it's not *all* his fault.

The gist of the "argument" you quote is that because Garrett did not actually fasten the clips he's not at fault. To that extent, true.

Really, he's guilty of a terminal lack of awareness of (i) what's out there in the industry and (ii) what affect the deployment of the insulation rebate scheme would have on the public and the industry. This goes to his competence as an administrator.

And, he is guilty of being dumb enough to be the spokesman/patsy for a rollout that probably has little to do with him and his Department (Environment). According to Jack Waterford's analysis in today's Canberra Times, the fault within the bureaucracy lies more with the Departments of Treasury, Finance, and Prime Minister & Cabinet.

I would like to add an analogy to this.

Say a security guard is hired to protect a bank premises, and whilst on duty he goes to sleep, and the business is robbed, and a customer killed.

In this scenario the robbers are responsible (as are the shonky installers), however, the complete failure of the guard to do his job enabled the robbery to take place.

The guard is not responsible, but he will surely be held accountable.

There is no dispute, that in the implementation of this policy Garrett was asleep at the wheel. If he had even done a halfway competent job, this disaster would not have occurred to this magnitude.

If having a loyal minister is more important than having a competent minister then Rudd will keep Garrett, however, if doing more than a bodgey job of governence is important, then Garrett should be as welcome as a dose of clap.

Dear Cornflower,

Decisions, decisions...
Hansard or Dennis Pryor?

Hmmmm.

But, seeing as you did ask ...

Perhaps this will answer your question:

" Political Pryorities is a comical, critical,
cynical, sceptical, ironical, satirical
dictionary of Australian politics.

Every question you ever wanted to ask about the
nongs you are forced to vote for is answered in this
delightfully witty book which is designed to be
equally offensive to all parties.

With his tongue lodged firmly in his cheek
Dennis Pryor exposes all the vanity and hypocrisy
of our leaders, bureaucrats, journalists and party
hacks. This is the voters' revenge on the people who spend
their taxes..."

I simply thought we needed another perspective on things
something that would ring as true as -
"Yes Minister."

Prof. Pryor died in 2008 - He was a lecturer in Classical
Studies at the University of Melbourne - as well as writing
a television column for the Melbourne Age.

RobP & Shadow M.

Thanks for your thoughts. For myself, Garrett is proving to be more and more a disappointment, as a pollie he makes a great rock-dog.

However, to go so far as resigning?

Bronwyn Bishop when held to account regarding Aged Care nursing homes refused to resign because she was "responsible for fixing her mistakes".

Amanda Vanstone when Immigration Minister was brought to task over such "sleeping at wheel" controversies as Cornelia Rau, "Pacific Solution" just off the top of my head.

How about Reith's claims regarding children overboard?

I'm not saying any of what I have listed justifies Garrett, simply that he should be given a chance to make amends and that if he was to be shafted then any of the above mentioned Libs should also have been ejected from office.

Nor do I think Garrett is directly responsible for the deaths of the hapless workers for the "shonky operators".

Frankly, I don't have time for either the Libs or Labor. However, I also loathe hypocrisy and there is a lot of that coming across from Abbott regarding Garrett.

It seems that the incompetence of labors insulation policy has no bounds for incompetence.

So just who are these people doing the inspections and what qualifications do they have.

Must have gone to tender for the cheapest quote.

She'll be right, mate
WE HAD our house insulated last October. We subsequently received a letter from the government stating we would be contacted if our house was selected for inspection to ensure the installation met the program's requirements.

Two weeks later an inspector arrived (with no prior call), flashed his credentials (hanging around his neck) and announced he would inspect the installation. I asked where was his ladder so he could get up through the manhole. He did not have one - and asked if I had one. When I said ''no'', he asked for the work order that had been issued by the installer, signed it and left. We are one of the 36 per cent of households that Garrett says are ''happy'' with the work. Excuse me.

Foxy

Wit is a scarce but much appreciated commodity in a world of political correctness where even a cartoonist like Michael Leunig might be kneecapped by the serially offended.

Yes, Prime Minister just happens to be my bible on politics and yes, I have seen Pryor before.

The insulation scheme could have worked brilliantly were it not for home owners taking advantage of it.

Next there will be the Badger eradication scheme. Tassie already has a scheme to remove non-existent foxes from its draughty shores.

Paging Belly, come in Belly.

You still haven't answered my simple question: is Kevin rudd lying for saying no safety concerns were raised by the Steering Committee, or is Dave Noonan lying for saying that safety concerns were raised?

It can't be that hard for a real Labor man to answer, can it?

Cornflower... I am sure you raised Badger eradication as a joke, but I understand that this vital new program is being fought over between Crean and Wong.

Crean is insisting that badgers pose no threat to 'the national interest' and so should be imported as soon and as fast as possible, while Wong is insisting that badgers represent a massive threat to the flow of our 'wild trickle', the 'River previously known as the Murray', and must be captured and sent back to Copenhagen.

Rudd has insisted that all badgers stop with him, or is that Him?

I am not sure what Abbott has to say on badgers, but Senator Joyce has a line on the need to erect giant badger gross-nets at state borders to capture all migrating badgers, some of whom travel by boat, at night, and so are hard to see.

Senator Hefferlump is demanding we are required by God to tame nature, and is organising a cull on gay badgers, who are defying God's Law, to turn them into meat pies and feed them to Comm car drivers as a cost saving to the Canberra food budget.

What we really need is the full weight of the investigation skills of The Australian to get to the Truth of the matter before the SMH take up the cause of badgers and we find them moving in to our gardens as a protected native species, saved through a partnership between Tim Flannery and Greg Hunt.

This might become a major election year issue and demand a thread of its own.

TBC

Heh, heh, U R too good for me. Make that a weasel thread, all part of the family, badgers, pollies and so on.

A few days ago I asked "who gains by Garrett's demise".

Well, it looks like that's been answered: "Greg Combet, the Assistant Minister for Climate Change, has become the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, and will have direct responsibility for the energy-efficiency programs."

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/no-sugar-coating-on-this-pill-20100226-p952.html?autostart=1

Does anyone else remember what Combet's job was before he got his key to the Parliamentary dunny block?

The Unions have a lot to answer for, but they never will as long as Labor's in power...

Antiseptic,

Combet, of course, was the head of the ACTU for about 7 years. You say he has gained. He may well have gained a headache to go with his enhanced position and salary (presumably).

In the video attached to your link, Combet was described as Labor's Mr Fix-it. What does this actually mean? Does he fix real-world problems or does he just fix the political problem? Anyone have any insights on this that they're prepared to share?

-- -- -- --

I came across this insightful article by Peter Hartcher which, I think, explains pretty well what happened and the reasons why: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/putting-a-ceiling-on-the-scandal-20100226-p915.html

Garret's demotion had nothing to with a hyperbolic, non existent culpability, in the death of anybody. Claims of that are both over the top and entirely party politically motivated.

Garret's crime, if it was one, was not being both bureaucratically
and politically inept. Demotion was appropriate but beyond that is sheer nonsense.

As I said originally the businesses involved need investigation for *they* have the responsibility under law.(full stop)

Any claims beyond that are tenuous at best and demonstrate that the the commenters are either party political players,(who have suspended reality for the sake of party partisanship, public point scoring) or have no real understanding, of the role and limitations of a minister of the crown. There is no direct commercial equivalent.This is true on many levels.

Surely, it's time we focused on the victims both rellies of the dead and the now unemployed workers.

The latter *is* the current government's responsibility to fix and quickly. I think, Combet's bureaucratic and political experience will out.

Ministries require experience and pragmatism, not sheer idealism and enthusiasm. Garret was always going to fail, too much responsibility, expectation, inexperience and too soon, perhaps too big an ego to decline.

If he continues he may recover.

>>Garret's crime, if it was one, was not being both bureaucratically
and politically inept. Demotion was appropriate but beyond that is sheer nonsense.<<

examinator,

I assume you mean that Garrett's "crime" was OF "being both bureaucratically and politically inept" rather than not. If so, I tend to agree that demotion is appropriate at this time. But it could be the start of a slippery slide for him.

I do however believe that Abbott has a point when he says that it isn't right that Garrett is now to have a holiday from the real work, while he stays in Cabinet and presumably attracts the same salary as before. Unfortunately, the fact that Abbott has said it will ensure that this situation won't change, as Rudd simply cannot afford to be seen to be done over by Abbott. Ironically, it is Abbott's approach that is actually locking Garrett into place.

>>I think, Combet's bureaucratic and political experience will out.<<

Is this bureaucratic and political experience real or is it straight out of the ALP handbook of pre-emptivley talking up their man so that he gets a rails run from the commentariat? I am seriously interested to see some facts.