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).