Peter Garrett is in all sorts of strife, over the deaths caused by unsafe foil roof insulation installations under a Federal Government programme.
Writing at The Stump, Bernard Keane argues that the Opposition’s pursuit of Garrett has been lacklustre. A range of commentators have been reciting something along the lines of “ministerial scalps don’t come on a platter” (sometimes accompanied by hilariously clever remarks about Garrett’s bald dome).
Yet none of this goes to the question of whether Garrett *should* resign.
Central, here, I think is the fact that his department was alerted to the possible adverse consequences on several occasions before the scheme went ahead, by both the NECA and state bureaucrats.
Garrett also has form, the ANAM debacle might suggest, for not exercising much oversight of his department.
And the Howard government was regularly criticised for Ministers offloading responsibility for maladministration onto public servants.
Update: Chris Bowen provided the government’s defence of Garrett on tonight’s Lateline.
Elsewhere: Legal Eagle.
Update: Chris Bowen provided the government’s defence of Garrett on tonight’s Lateline.
No.
Garrett, as much as I admire him (still), has always been a political accident waiting to happen. He was catapulted into a ministry far too early, without the requisite experience. Quite frankly, the deadly electricisation of houses with foil insulation (up to 1,000 houses; is that correct or media lies?) could be a political disaster for Labor, unless Rudd acts swiftly and ruthlessly to nip the controversy in the bud. The only question is, is getting rid of Garrett, or just keeping him as Minister for the Yartz, the best way to deal with it?
Besides, it distracts and detracts from the fully justified Barnaby bashing – a real political scalp waiting to happen, and very deservedly.
If this govt. adheres to the same standards of accountability as the previous then I agree with Razor. There is no positive lying in this case.
Surely this is more a case of industrial relations and the building industry, than Peter Garrett’s ministerial scalp?
I don’t think he should resign until some feeble conservative journo has found lyrics in a song of his which his current actions directly contradict. Until that happens, it’s just not any fun.
I gather its mainly an issue in QLD – I assume the insulation in question is better at keeping heat out, than in, hence not used further south?
I dont know about sacking, but it could well be reshuffle time. Its a pretty bad look. Garrett would be much better in Indigenous affairs, I reckon. Or Yartz, as Paul says.
Abbott might double down and shift Barnyard to where he belongs – shadow climate change!
@4 – Patrickb, lying to Parliament wasn’t the only justification for ministerial resignation traditionally. The accountability of a Minister for the actions of their department is supposed to be very broad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_ministerial_responsibility
I’m hearing on local radio that they audit one house in 10. A woman rang up saying her house had been selected for audit, but when the bloke heard she had foil insulation he said he couldn’t come because he needed to be accompanied by an electrician and he didn’t have an electrician.
There is also a stuff up of major proportions in the Green Loans program. They trained about 10 times more assessors than they needed and now the program is going to run out of funds I think in April, so these people suddenly have nothing to do.
I think there is a problem in the competence of the public servants. Garrett doesn’t seem up to being able to fix it and is continually in reactive mode.
Yes.
One reason I was glad to see the back of Howard was his lax approach to ministerial responsibility and the impunity that conferred on a succession of Ministers for Immigration. I want to see a serious improvement on that standard.
So do I Gummo – and if he Garrett needs to get reshuffled to establish better standards, so be it.
I say that even though you’d HAVE to conclude in this case – with Brian – thats there’s some serious bungling at the Public Service level at the root of this problem.
I’m throwing the question out there, rather than taking a stand on this one, but I think there’s some value in the traditional principle that a minister is responsible for the actions and competence of their public servants, particularly if that means in practice that ministers really do try to get to the bottom of incompetence and remedy it promptly.
I agree with Brian – Garrett does appear to be very reactive. It’s reminiscent of some of our hopeless state ministers whose appearances on the news are a roll call of “wow! the department didn’t tell me about that”, “I’m getting a report on it”, etc.
Failure of ministerial oversight, Lefty E. He wasn’t supposed to let that happen.
In the long run it’s political poison for a Minister to keep his position after someone has died as a result of a stuff up in his portfolio.
I’d make two other points:
(a) it’s both tragic and disturbing that some of this work was done by untrained and young non-unionised workers (eg Irish backpackers), hired by unscrupulous and cowboy outfits, some of whom died or were injured. The warning from the state officials that the whole thing would effectively be unregulated seems to me to be key. Garrett’s whole story appears to be doing stuff *after* things had already happened, not ensuring in the first place that the programme could be delivered properly and safely;
(b) I doubt at this stage he’s much of a political plus for the government. I also don’t know that Fitzgibbon’s resignation last year did the government any great harm.
Yes, I agree Gummo – he’s really got to go. Whether that’s sacking, or a reshuffle, I dunno.
I don’t think its too much of a tangent to raise the spectre of the issue of industrial safety in general.
I recall Sharyn Burrows saying some time ago that there were 8000 industrial related deaths and 700,000 accidents [and disease] related to work annually.
By some measurement and formula.
We seem to take little notice of this.
Yet, by contrast, we have detailed reports and images almost nightly on teev of a smaller [?] number of deaths on the roads.
Again, safety at workplaces seems to be considered largely a financial matter, here in SA we get TV ads that encourage workers to ‘get back on the horse’ as part of rehab after injury.
I know workplace safety seems to be a major issue from the POV of workers’ compo and days lost to the economy, that OH@S gets a lot of PR but I just wonder if we really are giving the safety of workers the proper attention it deserves.
No case to answer here. I wouldn’t say he’s done a great job, but he’s responded appropriately to incidents after they have occurred. In terms of whether they should have been dealt with in advance: (1) questions of whether the scheme was hastily conceived go to the whole Cabinet, not just this Minister; and (2) if there were not a plethora of dodgy practices in the building industry, Today Tonight would look more like The 7.30 Report. They shouldn’t be there, of course, but not many batts would have gone into roofs if the program had to wait until all dodgy practices were eliminated from the building and construction industry.
The comparison with Fitzgibbon is not right. It is more and more apparent the extent to which he was in debt to people with the capacity to influence him, bot personally and in terms of the conduct of a strategically sensitive Ministry. Also, he was the best man at Mark Latham’s wedding, a fact still noted (I’m sure) by many of his colleagues.
Rubbish. What were the state regulators doing, other than ringing up the Dept of Environment in Canberra and “issuing warnings”? Why weren’t they doing their jobs? What a bunch of fat-arsed sissies all running for cover.
I just heard on the radio that the only state regulator who actually did anythng proactive at all, was some woman in WA, who at least put a speed hump in front of the installation process in her state.
If you listen to the beat of the press gallery and media drum (and crikey in particular), you will hear the real issue at stake here. Gotta get a scalp before parliament goes into recess, and Garrett is an easy target, he’s a bald rock singer. Go for it boys, we are bored.
There is an arugment to be had about the state of the federal Department of the Environment, after a decade of being run into the ground by a government that thought climate change and tree-hugging etc was crap. It will take years to rebuild its capacity.
Further, electrical installation procedures are not in the job description of these public servants, and they would have had no option but to rely on state expertise in ground level management. Most likely it was a case of relatively junior level federal public servants trying to tell relatively senior level state public servants to do their job properly. Buckleys.
But you won’t see that argument happening in the media. The hounds are running and the blood lust is climbing.
Garrett deserves a clip over the ear from the PM, and an immediate increase in his departmental funding.
Sadly, it looks like public service incompetence, unless there is a documented trail that demonstrates the Minister wouldn’t listen to their advice.
Silly question, but if this foil insulation was dangerous, surely it was dangerous before the federal government started subsidizing its installation. So why weren’t state governments acting to restrict or ban its use, given that it’s their job to do so?
Garrett is not blameless, but it’s state government ministers with the direct responsibility who should be resigning, not him.
Plan B: blame the State governments. There’s a good idea.
Five workers have died for the insulation programme, four by electrocution, and one form heat exhaustion. There is no possible excuse for the incompetence of the government in this matter and as the minister responsible for the program Garrett should held accountable. I just can’t believe that any lefty would be making excuses for this deadly outcome from the insulation program that is costing workers lives. Those who are should hang their heads with shame.
Listening to Radio National with Tony Abbott piously gunning for Peter Garrett like a rat up a drainpipe.
Clearly there are problems with application of the building regulations in Queensland, is that the Minister’s fault. No.
Sorry the 16 year old died of heat exhaustion in the Sydney roof. I expect the WorkSafe Authority in NSW will prosecute the business owner. Is it the Minister fault, No
The fact that the industry was swamped with cowboys, yes the department could have halted the eqregious rorts that were obvious to any consumer with a 5 minute look at the find your local installer page of the website. When the handsome Irish backpacker arrived in a rented truck and was unable to calculate roof area, I vowed no one from City Insulation was getting the work.
With all the various make work schemes to keep the building trades fully employed, would the minister have been able to halt this program?
In Victoria the problem was solved by the manufacturer/supplier , Bradford, only supplying material to its existing installer base.
He had been warned and didn’t do enough to address the issue. I think he should be stood down or reshuffled to somewhere less important to the future of Australia than the Environment portfolio. The Arts would be perfect.
Fran Kelly warmed up on the ABC this morning with her mate Tone, getting terribly appalled at Garrett’s obvious personal negligence and his direct responsibility for the deaths of many, many, many…
Fran Kelly then waved Tone goodbye, pulled on her footy boots, gave the earphones to Garrett, and told him he should resign. It blew up in her face. Garrett’s performance was absolutely terrific. He answered every “question” (fact-free accusation) with a barrage of facts and solid policy arguments. Hesounds like a man in charge of his portfolio.
Garrett will do fine in Parliament this afternoon, as he should, and he will not resign.
I’m a big fan of Garrett but like it or not the buck stops with him.
I could only wish that the Howard government took ministerial responsibility seriously.
A 16 year old boy is dead. That’s the bottom line.
An apology and a resignation from Mr Garrett is needed. An apology from Mr Rudd perhaps.
And an immediate review of all insulated properties. There have been some real cowboys about of late. We had some joker trying to get someone to sign some papers so he could get into the roof to put in ‘free’ insulation.
Claimed strata already approved of it. Pity the guys he asked were on the strata
I agree with Terry @17.
Didn’t watch the 7:30 report but did catch Bowen on LL. He was out of his depth and could have fielded the silver fox better. Is that a permanent inadequacy of his?
The insulation roll-out was conceived at cabinet level then its implementation charged to the department. The industry knew it was coming but couldn’t invest up front because of policy uncertainty – they won’t take the risk of investing up front because programs have been pulled at the last minute before.
Then a rapid roll-out was on, with cabinet putting on the pressure to show that this government is Action Jackson (managing political risk) and all of a sudden companies who have laid off staff due to the GFC are sourcing supply lines all over the planet (I’m not exaggerating here).
The biggest gap was in training. There was not enough time to train all the workers needed and an immediate demand for installers. Frankly, no-one should be getting into a roof before they have been trained in electrical safety. The anti-regulation stance of the construction industry is a factor here.
The department set up the inspection scheme to ensure that the rollout was proceeding in this environment. The warnings from the industry at least covered a lot of these aspects. Training was an issue but it was not the only area of risk they were warning about – supply was another.
So the OHS issues were pre-existing but were exacerbated by the haste of this scheme, but would have still been there even if rolled out in a more orderly fashion.
Given the deaths were isolated and the department did not have information gathering capacity at this level (the responsibility lay elsewhere), much of the media response I have seen is, “people were dying – the minister should have known”. My question is why – how was he expected to get that information?
When he did, there is evidence he responded.
The skills required to project manage at this level are limited in government and skilled practitioners can get a great deal more money in the private sector.
This issue shows there were great weaknesses in the scheme that exacerbated endemic risks. There is no need for workers to be dying if proper procedures are adhered to. Whether they are being properly regulated, I’m not sure (I would guess not). These issues should be fixed but I don’t see how getting Garrett to resign (regardless of his basic capacities) would solve the problem.
When installers die installing foil in a ‘live’ roof the electricians who wired the house are the murderers as well as the building inspector who approved the sub-standard work.
Cabinet needs to take some responsibility for pushing through a scheme that relied for its delivery on contractors that the government had no prospect of controlling.That’s not an issue that ends with Garrett, though it suggests concerns about “shovel-ready” schemes being fast-tracked during 2008/09 are legitimate.
I’m not surprised that some of these deaths were in Queensland. It really is a haven of shonky building practices, get-rich-quick schemes, and bogans presenting t5hemselves for jobs they have no skills or aptitude for. Its also known for regulators being asleep at the wheel, or off on long lunches.
Roger Jones @26 – good points.
State and federal beauraucracies didn’t take into account the combination of dodgy products/practices and human greed that would enter into such a scheme.
It’s not just the foil either – insulation thrown over halogen light transformers, kitchen vents, etc – great fire potential right there.
Sacking Garrett would not fix the problem. In fact making sure that a bit more practicality in planning takes place would be more important. After all, we want to make sure no more deaths happen, rather than covering arses.
If he’s forced to sort this out (with compensation where appropriate) then he may (god forbid) learn something of the difference between idealistic policy and real-world effects of that policy. If that improves policy down the track then good, if not, then that’s the time to be sacking.
The more I hear and read about this, the more it seems to boil down to:
1. The government rushed the installation.(So Garrett’s only partially to blame.)
2. So changed has been the Federal Labor Party since the 1980s (under Hawke and Keating) it didn’t even occur to them that there would be a rush of petty exploitative capitalists taking advantage of unskilled workers and what appears to be a total lack of regulation. (First job of a Labor Government: protect the workers?)
Its a far cry from that Housing minister in the Curtin Government, J. J. Dedman, who once famously said in Parliament – “We’re not in Government to turn Australians into little capitalists.”
Opening Disclosure: I have never liked Peter Garrett. I didn’t like his music. I didn’t like how he got into parliament. I find him naive at best and very probably inept. I strongly suspect few in cabinet take him seriously and can’t imagine why he was made a minister at this stage. That said:
I don’t agree that this is a sackable offence. When all is said and done the COmmonwealth here is the funding body. While one can argue that funding should have been better specified, tying rebates explicitly to appropriately trained installers perhaps with item numbers as is done with medical services, in the end, the responsibility does lie with those who do the work.
A more serious problem was the fundiong model. Personally, I’d have preferred that if subsidies were to be paid, that they be paid in support of work reflecting assessment reports by suitably qualified and independent persons. If work was approved as feasible, then the government would allow the work to be done by a suitable tenderer at the cost specified in the tender.
Doubtless that process would have led to far fewer installations than the 1 million Garrett claims, and so would not have been as effective as a stimulus measure, and would probably have cost more to deliver per household, but this would have avoided the political fall out we have seen and probably have led to a better energy saving outcome per dollar spent. I’d have liked to see householders get the report for free, bear the first 25% of the cost in cash and have a HECS- style loan for the rest. Moral hazard and all that.
People have to be encouraged to apply local oversight over the stuff they are getting.
One thing that this episode does underline is just how problematic “direct action” programs can be. You wouldn’t think you’d need to argue this with conservatives, but here we are. Does anyone think an Abbot-led government could manage a spending program an order or two of magnitude larger than this one and not have problems orders of magnitude larger than this one? If there are such people, they should reconsider.
The devil is in the detail. Was the risk identified in a brief, written or oral, which was then ignored or overruled by the Minister and Cabinet?
But also, was there anything to identify the risk as notably beyond the usual risks that are inherent in construction, not the safest industry by any measure? Because if there wasn’t, then it probably would make sense that a Minister would decide to go ahead. If there was, then the decision making point should be identified and held accountable.
I like the idea of Ministerial responsibility- to a point. Speaking generally about the public sector, there is already very little independence, the politicisation of policy decisions is very high, and big strategic issues are likely to shift without warning when the political (read ‘Herald Sun’) winds change. The more you ram home accountability to the Minister, regardless of the process by which the decision was actually made, the more you will get micromanagement by 26 year old Ministerial advisers deciding every issue down to the colour of toilet paper.
So I do think better info is needed in respect of the advice the Dept had, that was then given to the Minister, etc.
That being said, I think he is making a mistake by refusing to take ‘indirect responsibility’ as was put to him on ABC2 this morn. I think it would serve him better to say- in a big picture sense, I am saddened by and take some level of responsibility for any death of any person who is working on a program I have instigated, no matter where specific fault lies.
Never mind, in his case, you can in fact say that if he has to give up his day job, he can go back to singing.
“Never mind, in his case, you can in fact say that if he has to give up his day job, he can go back to singing.”
Those who express their general contempt for Garrett as just a bald-headed rock-singer (why that’s less of a representative qualification than being just another party hack escapes me), should note that Garrett is also an ANU law graduate, and ran a high profile environmental NGO for a number of years. He is way more qualified to be a Government Minister in his particular portfolio than any number of his cheap critics in parliament. The fact that he can front a rock band occasionally is a colourful bonus, not the entire definition of his worth.
“When installers die installing foil in a ‘live’ roof the electricians who wired the house are the murderers as well as the building inspector who approved the sub-standard work.
Billie – you misunderstand one of the problems! When the foil insullation is installed it is stapled into place. Occaisionally the staples go into the electrical cabling in the roof and so electrifying the foil. Hence the move from metal staples (which conduct electricity) to plastic staples (which don’t conduct electricity). It’s not a problem with the original electricl installation.
A small correction to Grace #33. Peter Garrett was President of the ACF on two occasions, but he didn’t really run it. It’s the Executive Director who runs it from day to day.
“Garrett’s performance was absolutely terrific. He answered every “question” (fact-free accusation) with a barrage of facts and solid policy arguments. Hesounds like a man in charge of his portfolio.”
Indeed. Well said in both comments Grace.
And it’s obvious he took action beyond what any governments have done before. Altered existing frameworks in response to deaths and warnings.
The wolves baying for blood & finger-pointing for political & profiteering (the media) gain should be ashamed of themselves.
I felt Garrett should’ve been moved a short wile ago because I could see this kind of scapegoating coming. And a couple of other reasons. He’s handling it well…highly articulate. And you know the poor fella is FEELING it.
The mainstream media has lowered itself to its usual standards. And as I said elsewhere:
“Weird. I can’t remember heads rolling at the top when the Twin Towers were hit.
But weren’t they warned?
Weren’t governments warned that Iraq would become a quagmire & death trap for troops…particularly w/out proper combat gear? But did top heads roll?
Weren’t Aussie ministers warned that rebates would lead to rising private health costs…and medical costs across the board…and that public hospitals would lose necessary staff…more needed to be trained? How many died? Did heads roll?
Garret’s a decent fella. He’ll probably go. The mining, energy, pulp mill, dam building projects investors/CEOs/execs will probably clap.
And then people might start wondering…thinking wider.”
Just a few added thoughts.
N’
i think Mr. Garrett is a great person.
so does it mean because the gov puts money in to hospital and i go too hospital and die thats the govenrments fault of course not.
i stopped buying papers long ago. My adult son said to me he gets all his information off the net and so do his friends. i think we live in the generation that will see the end of daily papers.
.
I did espress my thoughts on the breakfast national show but they where not interested.
Garrett has been an inept Minister and I’d like to see him go on that basis alone.
“It’s not a problem with the original electricl installation.”
Habby, while I accept generally what you say, it is just guessing to suggest that the original electrical installation, necessarily, was not the cause of any problems.
Apart from the staples, a dangerous situation could easily have arisen when foil sheeting was placed over carelessly covered connections by slack electrical contractors.
I think that really Garrett is only a bystander here. You don’t really think that the movers and shakers of Rudd Labor, Rudd himself, Gillard, Swan and Tanner, would have allowed Pete to make any decisions about matters such the one currently causing him grief. He could go in the interest of ministerial responsibility, but why bother, unless, of course, you want to demonstrate to the public that you “beieve” in the principle of ministerial responsibility.
On the other hand, this problem could be seen as a workplace problem. If this were the case, then perhaps the responsibility would lie a minister who knows all about labour deployment and training. It’s hard to this being the case though.
onya nasking, nice to see you around these parts, stick around old son. I fondly remember our days on the Road to Surfdom…
armagny @ 32 – according to the news reports there was written advice from an industry group back in March last year which warned that by rolling out the scheme as they did (which was probably referring to the huge sudden increase in demand) would lead to safety issues. The author says they more thinking along the lines of house fires etc rather than electrocution death. It hasn’t been clear if the warnings from the states were verbal but you’d expect detailed minutes to be taken in those sorts of intergovermental meetings.
Well also according to news reports he was warned that if they rolled out the scheme in the way they intended that they would not be able monitor it adequately because they did not have the resources to do so.
Can only speculate why all this advice did not lead to the scheme being cancelled or modified, but the decision would have been made in a context where it was seen to be very important to get any recession proofing scheme going (spend money fast!) and withdrawing the scheme would have been very politically embarassing.
Kind of makes you wonder about the safety and quality of other capital works programs initiated around the same time.
I think Garrett has been really quite good at picking the types of schemes to implement – insulation and green loan schemes are a good idea. Its the implementation and oversight that are the problem. The Green loan schemes for example has a ridiculously high income threshold cutoff ($250,000) and leads to middle and high income earners who don’t really need them getting interest free loans.
I reckon there are ALP droids rubbing their hands with ill-concealed glee, especially in queensland where the ETU is a thorn in Bligh’s side ( the ‘See Qld first before Bligh Sells it’ bumper sticker). Sure they’ll be making the suitably grave and righteous noises about the tragedy of their fallen comrades-in-trades etc, but as we see in Mark’s linked lateline ep, the master electricians have already put their hand out. They suggest the government pay (them) for the audit and fix, and while they’re at it, run the cowboys out of cashflow town.
It’s a set-piece opportunity to frontendload cash to, and mute, a potential organised threat to labor in Qld: give ETU members enough cash and they’ll shut up alright. It’s copybook ‘Shock Doctrine’ Disaster Capitalism model at work: create/allow disasters to take place, and move in to exploit the situation.
Has the actual knowledge skill and responsibility capital in our tradesperson industries really been depleted so low that they couldn’t see it coming, that laying conductive material on top of untested, ancient, higgeldy piggeldy, maybe rodent-gnawn, cables from pre-regulated times was risky?
The real value proposition would have been to jumpstart a genuinely skilled and appropriately equippped apprentice green sparkie workforce to properly audit and refit the network edge of the nation’s energy infrastructure. Instead we get yet another rollout of the Bodgie Revolution: Bodgie education, bodgie environment, bodgie infrastructure, bodgie finance, a hodge podge of mutiple govt-to-carpetbagger cashflow opportunities ( training anyone?) whose real (other) aim is to provide temporary work for labor hire company fodder voters, generally utelads.
I can’t quite believe just how bodgie the ‘Green Loan’ (another of the hospital passes the ‘real labor’ types have given to Garrett to keep him down) qualifying assessment I had yesterday was , but which treasury will still cough $200 for. One’d have to have been under a quarry of rocks to not already know about appliance standby, compact fluoro bulbs, lo-flo shower heads, dual flush toilets etc. One, (most of ones anyway) couldn’t answer those questions on an internet form, and cut to the ‘warranted refit’ chase?
What I at least expected to have seen demonstrated is exactly how much juice fans use at hi/lo speeds, the relative energy impost of desktop v laptop, big/small/crt/lcd/whatever televisions, etc. But did she have a meter to do that, to do something I couldn’t do myself (without spending money on technology that is really once-only useful)? Yeh right, pigs’ she did. She did publicise a state gov’t freebie program tho, which is the point of having Kev at the helm, use federal money to keep the labor premiers, esp in Qld, in power. (I believe there are councils who sensibly allow you to borrow a meter for a bit, but Concrete Canyon Campblell’s isn’t one of them.)
Save the $200 subsidy ( and the NBN money) for helping have real (trained tested and tagged) almost sparkies test and tag the nation’s ageing roof wiring, and put in alarms and smart meters and powerline-broadband equipment, I say.
Maybe the insurance companies could see their way to getting with the prophylactic program. As it is, it’s going to be interesting what insurance companies do when houses do burn down, arguably because of bodgie foil insulation installation. Pass the claims onto the insurers of the foil fitters? It’s one way for the gov’t to get to accquire (and on-sell) urban land stock, by buying burnt out blocks to settle insurance claims. They may as well provide the matches.
joe2 @ 39 – the other problem is homeowners who do their own electrical work (which is illegal) rather than get a qualified electrician to do it to save a few dollars. Or with old houses just very old electrical work that needs replacing. Its definitely worth getting the wiring checked out when buying a house.
“onya nasking, nice to see you around these parts, stick around old son. I fondly remember our days on the Road to Surfdom…”
Thnx Grace. Yea good times. Fighting the good fight. I remember yer superb contributions too.
plus ce change eh?…sometimes I wake up and going by the media think the Coalition are still in charge.
Lotta accusations out there against Garrett…and public servants…little investigation into the companies/installers.
Hope the ABC put his interviews on ABC 2 Breakfast & radio up soon.
Have a goodie Grace.
N’
billie and habby
It may be that the main problem here has been the use of metal fasteners (I don’t know).
But it is possible that faulty wiring may also be a cause in some cases. Here in Vic, foils insulation is typically used as a “skin” inside wooden framed walls (brick veneer then is built up outside the timber frame as the external house wall).
An electician told me this story 15 years ago: “I was testing some wiring in a new house and happened to have my electric field sensor switched on as I walked through a loungeroom. It gave a reading. You’d expect nothing. I investigated further and found one whole loungeroom plasterboard wall was ‘live’. It was the insulation sheet directly behind the plasterboard. If anyone had hammered a nail or picture hook through that wall, they’d probably have been electrocuted. It turned out that the foil behind the wall was touching a bare wire down behind the skirting board at one of the powerpoints in the room. The insulation had been stripped back too far on that wire.”
Workplace deaths are indeed too common. Peter Garrett made the point this morning that roofs are dangerous places to work in. Workplace injuries and deaths have long pre-dated Peter Garrett’s various home improvement schemes, sadly.
(As a sidelight, installation of rooftop solar panels can takes plumbers up high; riskier than working under sinks or on ground-level pipes etc.)
His Dept also badly underestimated the likely take-up rate for solar PV (home installations) with an amazingly generous subsidy for 1 kW systems; especially generous when retailers organised bulk orders and dropped their prices. In that case his Dept looked bad because it had a roaring success on its hands.
This is an example of what happens when the government tries to implement a bucket o money funding program.
The various solar rebate programs under Howard had similar problems in the early years with dodgy installations and cowboys jumping into the market with eyes on the cash and lax work. It took several years to clean that market up a bit and come up with good ways for public servants to scrutinise and audit the work being done.
This is why Tony Abbott’s climate change policy will svck. Imagine the white shoe brigade peddlers of rubbish that will come out of the woodwork to offer tree planting services and soil carbon sequestration services etc. And there will be the high end peddlers too – developers in pin-stripe suits who promise all sorts of amazing carbon reducing ideas if only the government will hand them a few mill.
Given the amount of money that was put into the insulation program, the first question is whether Garrett was given enough resources to supervise the program. Trying to blame someone who was not able to check up on every installation because he did not have the resources is just futile and stupid.
If he was given the resources to supervise the program, but did not use those resources wisely, then clearly he has to go.
If he was not given the resources to supervise the program, then Cabinet must bear that responsibility, and if anyone should go, it is Cabinet. Fat chance.
No folks, over the past thirty years, the capacity of the public sector to supervise works of any kind has eroded to the point where it cannot. Witness this program, and the SIHIP program in the NT where the private sector now manages it all and the public servants are reduced to paying the bills and looking on in horror.
Well, we now have a smaller public sector, and are presumably paying less taxes. So don’t expect the public sector to be able to do what it did thirty years ago, and don’t expect a Minister to be able to do much where he has no resources to back him up.
We are getting what we are paying for – not much as it turns out. But don’t blame Garrett because we as tax payers are too mean to pay for the resources he needs to do the job properly.
“In that case his Dept looked bad because it had a roaring success on its hands.”
Same goes for the insulation grant and Green Loans, Ambi. The public is straining at the leash to take up practical measures that will save them money and cut back on emissions. They are miles ahead of government.
But part of his department’s job should be forward planning to avoid the boom/bust cycle of the budding green. They should be trying to encourage sustainable growth. At the moment there’s a huge boom when a subsidy is introduced and then a whole lot of people going out of businesses when the subsidy suddenly runs out. That doesn’t encourage long term investment. You want employers to invest in training for their employees, you want them to do good quality work because bad feedback will hurt them later on if they don’t – they’re not going to do that if they think the business won’t be there in 6 months.
@8
Oh yes, lying was a strict liability resignation issue. What I meant was that even lying (not necessarily to parliament just generally lying to mislead) was not considered a sacking offence thus giving license to all manner of lesser crimes which Garret may or may not have committed. The point being that under Howard the interpretation of broad was inverted to mean very narrow indeed. So narrow that it would appear to be beyond the capacity of mortals to define.
Maybe if the Cabinet and the ALP had a more diverse range of pre-parliamentary backgrounds they would have been able to forsee the dogs breakfast this scheme was going to create and crafted a better policy.
Yes Razor it does not do to underestimate the careless sharks and shonksters, from the private sector, who will come out of the woodwork when there is a dollar to scav.
danny@43: a really interesting observation on the backroom politics surrounding this issue. I was gobsmacked yesterday to hear the “master electrician” representative, so blindingly quick off the mark, able to provide an instant dollar estimate of how much it would cost the taxpayers to fund the entire audit. This had already been thought through, before the media had time to blink, focussed as they were on the easy story, a possible ministerial scalp….
Razor @ 52
Maybe if the previous Liberal Government had actually noted that booms and busts are part of the world economic cycle they may have had some works all planned and ready to go when the inevitable bust came.
Maybe if the previous Liberal Government had listened to such notable lefties such as Chris Corrigan of ‘smash the wharfies’ fame when he stridently pointed out the lack of transport infrastructure in Australia, and had drawn up plans to address the issue the minute the economy started to slow, we might have been able to start the stimulus with that sort of work.
Major infrastructure projects take several years to consult, get regulatory approvals, design and put out to tender. So, to be available in the start of 08, planning and design needed to have started by the start of 06. Hm, now who was in Government then?
If the Libs’ friends such as Corrigan had wanted infrastructure, and the Libs were in power when it should have been planned, and it would have been ready to go when the crisis hit (as it was bound to sooner or later), then the Libs have only themselves to blame if their mates didn’t get all the infrastructure they wanted and (noting that the ALP is installing some of it in rail and other transport projects) what infrastructure they do get will come from the ALP.
Don’t blame the ALP for the total failure of the Libs in 96-06 to plan for the inevitable bust. They always happen.
Its difficult to see how reputable tradesmen could survive on the environmental stimulus. Remember with solar panels that the program was building up slowly, stopped on May 10, residents were then told whether they were accepted in June. The funding came through on October 27th and the program was in full swing.
How can a firm carry electrical tradesmen while they waited from May 10 until October 27th for the go-ahead? How can a contractor round up reliable tradesmen?
Malcolm Richards on Lateline says that two of the fatalities involved metal staples into an electrical cable, while the third involved the foil touching an existing electrical fault. (The fourth fatality was non-electrical; it involved a young worker dying of heat exhaustion after working in the roof cavity without adequate breaks or hydration.)
I note that all fourth deaths involved unsafe work practices. Moreover the three electrical deaths were relatively quick – no amount of testing afterwards would have prevented them.
It seems to me that the only real issue is whether suitably qualified/trained companies were doing the work. If installers who should know better engage in unsafe practices, I’m not convinced that is the governments fault.
My TAFE college used to teach building and one of the comments the staff made to me was that the then-new Building Code of Australia focussed more on the result than on the techniques used to achieve it. Unfortunately the fatalities here sound to me the natural outworking of that kind of system mixed with the notoriously cavalier attitude of many in the building trades.
As far as I can see, Garrett is responsible for a rebate program and for quality assurance of the Installer Register. DEWHA does in fact require installers to have documentary evidence of their training. It will be interesting to see whether any of the companies connected with the fatalities were engaging in fraud as well as poor work practices.
An additional step that need to be taken is to see whether particular RTOs have been handing our competency certificates when they should not have been. The RTO idea is a good one in principle, but Howard removed a lot of the oversight of RTOS — that’s how those Permanent Residency factories have arisen.
Given the number of times that Cabinet Ministers have been filmed wandering around building sites wearing hard hats, its surprising there is not more knowledge about how the building industry (or as my father used to call it, the “building racket”) actually works.
Terry @59,
like the sympathetic magic. When Martin Pakula became transport minister in Vic his first instruction from Brumby was to travel more on trains. We could get the science minister wearing a lab coat more often, give the health minister a stethoscope. Foreign affairs needs to sleep around more widely …
Let the Treasurer buy the groceries.
Here’s the link to the Chris Bowen transcript:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2816152.htm
The insulation gig should have gone to Kate Lundy. She’s an ex-CFMEU official.
Minister Garrett should not resign but should provide full details.
The real investigation should focus on the cause of the accidents/deaths and the responsibilities of the prime contractors in these situations. These are private businesses run presumably for profit. The danger for a number of these small businesses is that an audit of the installations will reveal deficiences in their employment and OH&S practices.
An audit of these “companies” is the last thing the government wants. Most of them won’t exist in 6 months, or they will provide “green services” out of Tony Abbott’s ill thought through schemes to throw $ at the public through independent subcontractors.
Judging by this morning’s RN performances if Tony Abbott is the best the Coalition have to offer and Peter Garrett is the weakest of ALP performers why is there any doubt about who will win this coming election?
What a lazy charlatan Abbott is! If he was given a briefing on the insulation issue he clearly hadn’t bothered to read it. Repetition, confected grief and outrage with lots of hums and hahs playing for time on the issue, and FK let him get away with it. What the F..K is she doing in that job?
I was really impressed by Garrett and am quite ashamed of my earlier doubts about him, based as they were on an unquestioning acceptance of others’ views like that of Fran @ 31. He was as impressive as Grace, Nasking and others have said. Clear and well informed as he was I had no doubt that he cared about those deaths seemingly on his watch. If he were convinced it was due to any oversight or maladministration by his department I am sure he would resign.
The sheer size of this program surely meant that accidental deaths might emerge as a usual feature of workplace risk, particularly with roofing work in houses often not new or even recently renovated. I recall my personal responsibility for a fire in my own roof in Woolstonecraft in not acting promptly on a flickering ceiling light. Apparently my resident possum had peed on and shorted old wires which ignited a cardboard box of books. I was also told by the visiting building inspector that my fire was not unusual after the long drought in NSW.
I imagine today’s QT will have Garrett well prepared with appropriate data on how these deaths compare not only across the country, but over recent years.
IMO Bowen is one of the best ministers, and best performers, of this government.
With similar caveats to those of Fran Barlow about Peter Garrett.
This whole thing is bizarre.
Did the installation of various types of home insulation only begin with this funding program or was it going on before with standards established and industry training available?
Just how much training is needed to do the job? I suspect a week would err on the generous side and a couple of days would be more likely. It should not take long to run sufficient installers through such training to make them aware of potential hazards and mandatory standards.
Is there any industry accreditation for businesses in this industry? If not, why not? But as things stand that is probably a state matter and should at least involve work-cover.
It is ludicrous to propose the Minister of the funding Department should be micro-managing the whole process from top to bottom.
I am no great fan or Peter Garrett’s but this is just a beat up.
I do not in any way wish to diminish the tragedy of what happened to the unfortunate workers who died. That should not have happened.
joe2 and Chris at #50, #51
I agree.
Patricia WA,
Your flickering ceiling light? One of the flourescent tubes in my kitchen is flickering. Agent tells me its my responsibility to replace it. I thought it was a buggered tube. Now you got me worried.
Commenting anonymously for obvious reasons.
Having been involved in the process of vetting installers, I can tell you that the department was concerned about the cowboys and tried to verify them where they could. The carrot was the money and the stick was legal liability, down to insurance requirements. The scheme was simply too popular: sooner or later someone was going to try something on. It should have been restricted to builders only and not plumbers and electricians who wanted some extra cash. The focus was on protecting consumers but in some areas there were few alternatives.
Does that make Garrett liable? In no way. I side with Roger @27 here. We had sufficient calls from worried registered builders that the cowboys were either going to get someone’s house burnt down or worse, and they were not getting any joy from the department itself, whose switchboard has a reflexive attitude of “send it somewhere else”. They were paying about 10 people to manage the calls and what started out as 3/4 week project ended up being 6 months. The program simply ran away from the department and they couldn’t manage it. Move Garrett on, and make Wong do some real work.
I must be missing something. The Government provides an insulation subsidy. Home owners hire dodgy installers and accidents occur. When do we get to the bit about it being Garrett’s fault?
In the light of all the comments here, I’m forced to soften my position too. Pity – the tar was just coming to the boil…
I think Rudd should do a Howard here and start blaming the State governments.
The consensus here seems to be that there was insufficient government oversight of the private sector. But isn’t the private sector supposed to be inherently superior to the state when it comes to these practical tasks? Wasn’t that the whole justification for the compulsive privatisations that have stripped the public sector of all the technical and professional expertise it acquired over more than a century of highly competent service delivery? I mean the argument was that government inspectors and rules just cause unnecessary expense and inefficiency.
And now the conservatives have the stunning hypocrisy to blame the government for the incompetence of the private sector. No doubt in a different context they would be stridently calling for industry self-regulation in place of the dead hand of government oversight of OH&S. Their opportunism and absence of coherent principle know no bounds.
“It should have been restricted to builders only and not plumbers and electricians who wanted some extra cash.”
Thanks for the insider call Anonymous@71 but can you please explain the above?
I was under the impression that, even before the scheme began, any businesswoman could start up as an insulation provider once she had a registered business name.
And now, on pain of Garret and the roll-out, need to head down to the tafe to get a minimal qualification as a safe installer.
Yes, good one, Ken!
Don’t worry Gummo@73, you can always send the feathers to Tip.
Ken @ 75 – The private sector through the industry association warned the government that the design of the scheme was going to lead to safety problems like this (though they thought house fires were the real risk – and that may well pop up in the future once things age a bit). Perhaps Garrett should have listened to them earlier.
Chris I don’t know which association you are referring to; the only one I am aware of that has made a statement represents electrical contractors and its position is only that tinfoil installation should be done by a team that includes a licensed electrician. Make-work for its members, in other words, in the grand tradition of the licensed trades.
PB @ 70. No Paul, it wasn’t fluorescent. It was one of the old downhanging ones. Not being a great one for overhead lighting anyway I shrugged at the flicker at first. I changed the bulb eventually and when that didn’t work I sort of wondered if I should call an electrician! A few days later my ceiling burst into flames! Only the close proximity of North Sydney fire station and the time of day saved me for posterity! Someone else on LP will surely know but I think fluorescent flicker can easily be fixed.
I know the insulating deaths were not by fire, but all this talk of roofs (rooves?) and electricity reminded me of how we should never be complacent about electric wiring of any kind, particularly in old houses.
Interesting that Abbott hasn’t pushed for Garrett’s resignation. He’s now left it to the media to keep the story going, I guess. It’s helped Barnaby over a sticky week – not that he seems to have pulled his head in, judging by his exchange with Henry today.
Ken – they called for electrical inspections before and after the installation of the insulation. Given the state of wiring in older houses (the most likely to have the free insulation installed) it sounds like a very good suggestion and not just make-work. They could have based the requirement of the inspection on the age of the house if they’d wanted to save a bit of money. With the advent of safety switches you don’t hear of many home electrocutions anymore and I think people are getting pretty complacent about just how dangerous electricity can be.
Incidentally house roof fires were also up last year in NSW (statement from last year):
It would be interesting to find out how many of those had insulation installed under the program.
Hmmm… maybe I shouldn’t be in too much of a hurry to get those feathers to the tip.
Of course, in the interests of energy conservation, I won’t be heating up the tar just yet.
Paul, that’ll be the flouro tube (or possibly the starter). Get a new one of each, as the starters are cheap and it’ll save you a trip.
Garrett is finished. He’ll be thrown to the wolves to circuit break Rudd & the govt from Insulation-gate & the Green Loans Affair.
He’s on a hiding to nothing on this one.
His principal crime is allowing himself to be promoted about 20 grades beyond his level of competence.
Rarely is the phrase “He couldn’t run a chook raffle” literally so apt.
Gummo, my obviously lame and incomprehensible joke, about tar and feathering, was that (white) feathers could be sent to the man previously treasurer, name of Tip, who was too cowardly to take on Howard.
Oh dear – just been whooshed.
Yes, fear not Paul. Some neat energy saving flouros, while a little bit expensive , provide nice softer and healthier lighting to write books under.
http://www.todae.com.au/Products/officelighting/energyefficientfluorescenttubereplacementkit/
Bemused @ 68, TAFEPlus in NSW offers a 50-hour course to get your certification for this insurance installation programme.
The kid who died on the central coast in NSW of heat exhaustion had an intellectual impairment. According to one news report he was in his late teens and the day he died was his first day of employment. He was left by his contractor in a roof sapce and found staggering around on the street in a state of almost collapse. I think he died before hosipitalisation. The temperature in the roof space was calculated to be about 60C on the day which, as I recall it was a real broiler. Only the criminally negligent would send a kid like that into a roof space on a day like that.
Any Labor minister with oversight of that, any one with a shred of of human decency, would resign. Fred Daly’s advice to “never resign” does not apply. department heads should go as well. Lots of them.
Garrett has advisers but virtually none of them would come from any sort of background where they would know that most OH+S deaths occur in the small to medium business sector. The major corporations are on board with OH+S. Small business isn’t. Cowboy operators abound. Any idiot knows this. Garrett and his minions of morons wouldn’t know if their arses were on fire.
OH+S death and injury among 547 visa workers are lendendary. One poor buggar who had no English and no training was killed while felling trees in the Pilliga forest of NSW while employed by another cowboy contractor.
This goes the the absolute heart of ALP social Technocrats in power and anyone who thinks that the ALP is interested, let alone capable, of advancing the interests of what are still quaintly called “working people” needs to bone up on OH+S and the current moves to normalisation of state legislation around so called Federal
“model legisltation”.
These arseholes make me sick.
anthony, yes.
The watering down of state OHS legislation in the interests of national consistency is very problematic indeed.
Hey, consistent legislation on Federal models is an old strategy. The issue is what’s in and what’s out. The NSW statutory right of unions to initiate legal action against culpable employers is out. The no fault liability of employers is under attack. In NSW unions proposed a new charge of industrial manslaughter but the NSW Govt got they’selves a tame academic lawyer to recommend against it. The ALP has got no class.
Yes, I agree.
It’s the same story as with gender equality provisions in the state IR laws in Queensland – which I was tangentially involved in formulating about ten years ago. WorkChoices made them irrelevant, and the ‘national standard’ of Fair Work Australia is much inferior, despite other bits of FWA being cannibalised from the Qld IR Act. Gillard should have known better.
Incidentally, the point about low level state bureaucrats being involved in the discussions raised that somebody made above is almost certainly wrong. Queensland has a very robust Electrical Safety Authority, and I suspect they, and the Building Services Authority, were the ones talking to Garrett’s department. In other words, probably senior people who were very well aware of the potential problems and the cowboy operators on the ground warned federal bureaucrats who have zero experience of actually delivering programmes and hands on regulatory jurisdictions.
I’m afraid some of the ‘logic’ on display in this thread escapes me completely.
The private sector is constantly carrying out work funded by both state and federal governments. When did it suddenly become the governments’ responsibility to oversee the way the work gets done? When workers get killed working on government contracts for Leightons or Thiess or Abigroup – which most assuredly happens from time to time – does anybody blame the minister for the department that let the contract and call for their resignation?
Ridiculous. Mind you if it leads the government to re-establish public works departments and public housing departments and departments of main roads and so on staffed by permanent employees it might be a good thing.
Yes. People have died
It seems to me, Ken, that the difference is:
(a) the work is taking place in private homes not on big office construction projects or whatever, and thus it’s more difficult to ensure OHS standards in a ton of sites and with multiple contractors;
(b) the work probably wouldn’t have occurred in many instances had it not been for the government programme; and
(c) the government’s desire to have it rolled out very quickly compounded the problem.
Ditto. There is always a relationship between policy and practice. Policy has to be informed by the latter and vice versa. The major companies are good on OH+S but small contractors aren’t. That doesn’t mean that they can operate like they are living between Tombstone and Dodge City. Ultimately, the state has responsibility for surveillance of wokforce health and safety issues as well as how its money is spent. There are standards.
I’d like to commend everyone on this thread. Given the rubbish we are fed on the MSM, and the depths to which many threads run, I reckon this conversation has really shed some light on the issue.
teh intertubes wurx
I’m not going to comment on the main topic on this thread, just point out that the concerns surrounding the handling of the Green Loans program are not minor. Luckily no-one has died, but people are going to the wall financially, and there are serious questions to be answered, and most importantly the issues raised must be addressed.
Hmmm there seems to be a pattern developing:
Top 10 botched implementations of Rudd government policies
1: NBN, even before it’s implemented – guaranteed by a very dodgy hiring process, including putting a guy who’s spent all but a few months of his last 30 something years working for the one technology supplier company, who themselves were lately big time losers (2008 revenues €16.984b, net loss €5.215b), and who only got big via accquisitions anyway, and the guy was finally overlooked internally when one such accquisition happened. He’s an expensive appointment for NBNCo at ~2$mill pa, but that means he won’t be making any challenging noises when his puppet masters do what they like, like foist Mike Kaiser on him,. You’ll see NBNCo’s hiring policy is to arse-hunt semi-losers like the CEO who get tipped out when rival companies restructure.
2: Education revolution: basically giving every school at least one very expensive shed, calling it whatever the project manager wants to, a library, a science lab, whatever, they all come from a limited set of pre-approved kit plan options designed to match Bunnings and Borals etc inventory, so hired project managers could take on as many projects as possible at once and make an absolute killing, and yet be idiot proof. It’s the ultimate fish in a barrel story, which the industry won’t say a word about cos they are all in on it, it’s a fee-inflating project management sellers market. More, better teachers with real career pathways as a revolutionary education idea? That’s not the LaborMates way, after all, are the teacher’s unions gonna switch to backing tories? Yeh right
3: Super Clinics: 2 out of the promised 31 are operational … there’s been a bit of a hold up cos pretty much the only thing this gov’t is licenced to do is Tradie-Aid, and the boys’re all booked up building the afore mentioned sheducation revolution, and folks with nail guns and excavators are pretty much all Julia is licenced to make sure gets funded, so the nation’s medical needs will have to wait, Julia trumps Roxon, end of story.
4: Nowhere near the scale/importance of above, but for sheer audacity and purity of the trademark style, and making Steven Conroy a multiple awardee, the Wayne Goss scripted, Rudd/Conroy delivered, quarter billion gift to the commercial TV networks shareholders is a standout for the reason that there is absolutely no requirement for the giftee to do anything, good or useful or otherwise, in return.
5: 2 years after Jenny Macklin fired the starting gun on the NT Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Project, $50 million has been spent , and 2 houses have been built. Failure with this program is even more serious than for the others, it is sorely needed whereas the others are largely political plays.
6: anything and everything Garrett/Wong have touched.
7: Likewise Mar’n Fer’s'n’s antics: His 2 billion Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Flagships Program has .. given some coal mines $120 million
because ethey are coal minesfor pre-feasibility work – not feasilibility, that will get much more later, it’s tracking to use all the money and deliver doodly-squat. His performence at his other responsibility, renewable energy is spectalularly woeful: Australia’s only world scale solar project, in Mildura, was allowed to die when the brown coal power company investor, chinese capital actually, put the frighteners on, and pulled out. The renewable energy demonstrator program funding he administered pulled of a major coup: diverting 63 million, from the renewable energy funding to providing a power supply for the Olympic Dam uranium mine … genius. Then there’s his tourism portfolio: Only twice in the last 20 years have the number of folks leaving australia been more than those coming in, and both were on Mar’n's watch: 08′s difference of 200,000 ballooned to 700,000 last year. Rumour has it the nest big ad campaign to succeed the triumphant ” where cares where the hell you are” and “who’s Baz Luhrman?” ones will be something like “vist autralia now … while there are hardly any australians there”I’ll leave it in case anyone has ideas for the last three spots.
Or a list of ones that have been pulled off.
a: Scribble off a sorry speech the weekend before
AN @ 80 – Sorry, but how did Peter Garrett have oversight of this negligent contractor? Has this man been tried and proven a fly by night operator attracted to the honey pot of stimulus money? And yes, the lad had a low IQ, but I imagine he and his family were initially delighted at this chance of training and a job. Given cooler weather he may well have survived his first day at work and become gainfully employed, something earlier denied him. Knowing other details of his general health and commonsense understanding about daily water intake are also relevant here.
Steve ATP, today you display the darker side of your man in the street persona. Blind prejudice. I had a roofing contractor at the house today checking out guttering etc. and he laughed at me when I came out to urge caution. “Don’t worry, if I cark it you can blame Peter Garrett!” Afterwards he more seriously commented that this insulation thing was a big beat up. Bad luck for those who died but it happens too often in the building trades all the time. There’d been surprisingly few deaths, he thought, considering how many guys have been up on and in roofs for the past few months.
OK Mark, but (a) is a matter of degree, not principle, and I don’t see how you can realistically establish guidelines for when the government is responsible and when it isn’t. Does that mean the government should be overseeing the conversion of cars to LPG? Keeping an eye on all the small builders who got some stimulus money to build school buildings instead of their normal houses?
I don’t follow point (b) – my comment concerned government-funded construction in general. Obviously none of it would be done if it wasn’t part of a government program.
Point (c) maybe, but to the extent there is a problem it surely lies in the inadequate regulation and/or enforcement of OH&S, which is clearly a state responsibility. If a state government had asked for funds for inspectors or training courses or whatever, supported by well-argued warnings of potential fatalities, and Garrett had refused, then I agree he would have a case to answer, but so far I haven’t read anything to indicate anything like this happened.
@101 – Ken, yes, I agree that the state regulatory authorities needed to step up to the plate, but I doubt they have the staff and resources to do so for activity on this scale. Providing for that – with federal dosh – was surely an essential part of the project management of this whole thing from the pov of Garrett’s department.
PatriciaWA @100:
“And yes, the lad had a low IQ, but I imagine he and his family were initially delighted at this chance of training and a job. Given cooler weather he may well have survived his first day at work and become gainfully employed, something earlier denied him.”
OMG.
A bloke from the union on the Skills Taskforce directly involved in this Fed Govt insulation scheme (and a qual. electrician himself) was on 2BL this arvo…apparently the metal fasteners were banned some time last year, but the last death was post this ban.
A caller rang about house inspectors signing off on poor electrical work – ie. lots of wiring probably isn’t up to standard with proper covering which prevent nails, staples but apparently according to bloke even with proper standards you can still hit wire in between coverings etc – so yes, there are issues in respect of the standard of in-situ home wiring even beyond retro-fitting very old homes.
Also the Foil Industry reps. on the Taskforce said that they’d been installing for decades and no probs, other groups incl. the union apparently had concerns and reservations about foil insulation esp. with a mass roll-out, but the Govt apparently chose to take the Foil Industry’s advice…
Also batts had run out of stock everywhere and some contractors changed over to foil – so supply issues had led these inexperienced subbies to using foil.
An investigation and report of who said what and when, would be a v. good start and if shown that the Dept were negligent in any way or even very tardy in responding to known OH&S and training issues that were being flagged over & over, then Garrett should put up his hand, in the old fashioned way for his Dept’s failures.
It doesn’t have to be all pain if the Govt also uses the opportunity for a report/investigation to learn about deficiencies in these big roll-out programs re: putting in unrealistic timeframes for funding vs accquital, OH&S, extra training requirements, increasing compliance and fines and registering & auditing of contractors to be applied in any future roll-out.
Grieving families very often want to know that their loved ones didn’t die in vain and that something good and positive can come from these accidents (besides the charging/fining of the employers if indeed this is the result of investigations of these particular accidents themselves).
In my experience Mark the states don’t allocate resources to monitor OH&S in any aspect of the construction industry to anything like a satisfactory standard. The 1992 NSW Royal Commission made a finding to that effect and to my knowledge, little has changed since. The whole emphasis is on self-regulation, which in practice means effective regulation when there is (a) an active union presence or (b) a media campaign by someone or other on account of a recent death.
It would be a bit rough to make Garrett carry the can for this systemic failing, just because of a bit of publicity about his little contribution to the industry.
I’ve been told that the Workcover (NSW) inspectorate were instructed from the Minister’s office to lay off the prosecutions. That is how it goes. Wouldn’t want capital flight and LaborMates Inc (acknowedgements to Danny @100 for that) suffering economic difficulty when the whole bidness can be sorted out by chucking a few more corpses on the pile because no-one in power gives a ratz ass anyway.
AN@104 I imagine your horrified OMG is about my apparent lack of sensitivity. Not intended at all, but regretted in hindsight. I was trying, clumsily, it seems to show how even chancy things like weather can be factors at play in situations like these.
Any suggestion of resignation is ridiculous!
Garrett undertook all reasonable due diligence in proceeding with the program.
The fact that a miniscule fraction of the industry did not comply with the minimum requirements stipulated by the Minister is NOT THE MINISTER’S FAULT LIBERALS!
In any industry, there are the rouge elements: surgeons, pilots, butchers, financial planners…. It is a tragedy when someone dies as a result of such individuals. But it is no reason to sack the Minister
When a person dies from traveling over the speed limit in their car (despite the road rules, legislation, police enforcement, speed cameras, courts, etc.) WE DO NOT CALL FOR THE MINISTER TO RESIGN. THE MINISTER CAN’T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FALL OF EVERY SPARROW PEOPLE.
Society relies on each of us to act in a reasonable fashion and at least conform with minimum requirements. When this does not happen – it is a matter for the courts – not calling to sack the Minister.
He shouldn’t be sacked or resign.
They might replace him with somebody competent.
Thanks everybody re advice on fluoros. Will take it.
Now – Garrett – he is batting back well. But that doesn’t mean extra precautions should not have been taken to protect against the cowboys they must have known would be grabbing for the honey-pot. I wouldn’t expect theLibs to care, but I do expect Labor to.
Peter: I am surrounded, as you put it, by “rouge elements” in my workplace. But watch out for the Lyndon Louche Society. They are even worse.
I just read Peter Garretts statement to parliament over this whole thing and looking at the timelines involved and the way that at every stage the Department and Garrett have responded to the advice of industry bodies and other technical experts, the deaths of these contractors is not Garretts or his Departments fault. The simple fact is that some of the contractors who died appear to have been breaking the law.
How is Garret responsible? Of course in “retail politics” land, the only thing that matters is keeping Barnaby Joyce off the front page.
Anthony @ 107,
If you have any information that could substantiate what you are alleging, I suggest you go straight to the police or local corruption watchdog. Period.
Otherwise you might like to take a deeeep breath.
Razor @ 110
That puts the Libs out of contention then. I mean if Imprisoning Australian Citizens by Mistake Ruddock got to keep his job when the cock up was within his Department, what hope would they have with contractors engaged by third parties (insulation installers engaged by householders)?
I raised the spectre of workplace safety as an issue about a hundred comments ago and we now seem to be coming to some sort of consensus [the gods forfend] that:
-OH@S in the states is a bit of a PR exercise rather than a serious effort concerned with the welfare of workers
-there is a wide gap between rhetoric, federal state and private industry, concerning safety standards and real work place practices
-unions seem to be relevant organizations in such issues and yet we have seen in recent years/decades a series of deliberate moves to disempower such and curtail their representation of workers and concerns for safety and well being
-this latest series of deaths is fairly typical of situations where worker safety is a secondary issue.
So what lessons can be learned?
What should be done?
Anybody with a ‘vision’ out there?
Giving Abbott a stick to beat you with ought to be a sackable offence in an election year. The other reason why Garrett will go, and Wong shunted sideways, is that it will cast several environment/climate change debates in a whole new light. No progress on those debates is possible with them in those roles.
I’m with Gummo@10.
Mark@14:
(a) I thought this money was to stimulate businesses already in place, businesses with full expertise and insurance/workers’comp and licensing etc., rather than just tossing money out a window and seeing who catches it, and
(b) Ministerial resignations are only an issue when there’s a flurry of them, like there was in 1997 and under Fraser. PMs/Premiers who refuse to sack ministers end up surrounded by clowns, and paralysed in policy terms, and then they wonder why they can’t get re-elected (case in point: NSW).
Robert@20: Foil insulation isn’t dangerous per se, only when badly installed: this goes for a lot of things really. Garrett is one of the few ministers in this government who’s not a union official – maybe they might have asked some questions earlier – maybe. If Garrett resigns the whole standard of ministerial accountability will skyrocket, at least for a while (and probably a crucial period).
One day – one day a government will do something so heinous that even Robert Merkel will say: yep, the minister fucked this up, should have known better, deserves to be sacked. One day.
Fran@32: he’s responsible for the funding model, which might account for your sudden switch to the passive voice in your third par there.
Danny@44: doubt that the ETU got much out of it really. Did those dead kids submit their dues before they died, fried with an ETU membership card in the back pocket? Will the ETU die in a ditch for Garrett? Somehow I doubt it.
PatriciaWA@66: installing roof insulation is not like sending people to Afghanistan, a certain number of deaths is not just one of those things that happen and better policy calibration is what sorts the good ministers from the duds. Sometimes a minister has to go down to keep people on their toes. As to your later suggestions about “the lad” and cooler weather, you’ve managed to be both patronising and callous: if only you had different plumbing you might get a job as a Catholic bishop.
Ken@80: as opposed to what?
Peter@109: the fact that the industry did not comply with non-directions from the minister is indeed the minister’s fault, people are not sparrows, and the analogy about car drivers is stupid, ALLCAPS STUPID, which is more stupid than just plain stupid.
I’m not sure how culpable Garrett is on the insulation. It depends a lot on what warnings were given when, what options he had for restricting cowboys etc.
However, I can’t see how he’s not culpable over the Greenloans side. Maybe this isn’t grounds for resignation, but its clearly a stuff-up of major proportions, and it looks to be entirely something he could have fixed with oversight. First the department signed off on the training of an obviously ridiculous number of people. Leaving aside the fact that some of this “training” seems to have been atrocious, it should have been obvious that with that number of people in the market for a temporary program a lot of people would be ruined financially. The Department didn’t care and Garrett didn’t check. Secondly, they’ve blatantly favoured a large company over individuals in a truly disgraceful way, a decision Garrett must have signed off on.
I was also told by the woman who did my assessment that it looks like the assessors will be paid months later than they were promised, which is pretty unfair as well, and again hard to see how Garrett is not responsible.
If the Libs had real balls they’d re-run those ads from the last federal election campaign now about coming home from work safely that the ALP kept running back then.
“First the department signed off on the training of an obviously ridiculous number of people.”
From what I gather, Feral, the department was swamped with people wanting assessments and went for the number that they thought would be needed to keep up with demand which jumped around wildly. Frankly, with all the publicity around, it is likely that more people, than less, will sign up right now.
Particularly as it is has the potential to lead on to a very good deal on a no interest loan over 4 years. Lending institutions are just getting their heads around the loan because mostly they just agreed to provide it over the last couple of months.
I think we are witnessing teething problems on good scheme and just hope that the government is not scared off.
Yep Razor, I agree with you there.
Something to keep workplace safety up there in the front of the minds of the pollies would be good.
Yer, especially as teh liberals showed no sign of believing in it, Marks.
As a firm decrier of the ‘nanny state’ (smoking in cars comment etc) Mr Tone Conviction has undergone a remarkable conversion in recent weeks.
I look forward to the coalition policies on workplace safety, health regulation and any number of areas where government intervention might make our lives safer.
joe2, to answer your question @76. There were several issues involving the vetting of installers. As I mentioned, the prime focus of the vetting was to protect consumers. So installers went through a multi-step process where their basic business credentials and insurance details were crosschecked. Importantly, installers were made aware they were effectively providing a statutory declaration of their bona fides. A major problem arising from this was that because state regulations covered workers insurance, the department was unable to double check that. This was a key weakness in the scheme. It also meant that there was no way to confirm the truth of installers statements about the number of employees who would specifically do installing: we were forced to take their word, although we did make specific note of their numbers.
Just getting basic insurance details was a nightmare. We were often talking to someone already busy in a roof, who would send a garbled message to their secretary/business partner/wife so we’d get a fax of something completely irrelevant despite making sure they understood, and even emailing a form letter with all the details. Frankly, the deaths don’t surprise me given that experience.
So when I said it should have been restricted to builders, I was working on the basis that a) these guys already had the right insurance down to workcover etc. b) were under a much more restrictive code of conduct than other traders c) had a vested interest via a) and b) to do a good, safe job.
Could the department have done more initially? Difficult to say: at some point they had to trust the information that we were collecting for them. I think they were naive not to expect a rush on batts and attempts to cheat with foil, and we made efforts to keep them aware of the feedback we were asked to pass along; I have no idea whether that made any difference.
Andrew E said:
Yes but that doesn’t put him in charge of where the rubber hist the road. If I rebate someone on buying a high fuel efficiency vehicle, I’m not responsible if they happen to use it to drink drive or even if the car a person buys happens to be faulty in some serious way. A rebate doesn’t suspend what should be basic good judgement or individual risk trading. We have OH&S rules in place in NSW and if reckless and underskilled people are ignoring them then the responsibility in the first instance lies with them.
If someone offered me money to do work I knew or suspected I couldn’t perform competently, there’s no way I’d consider accepting it.
And in re: Patricia WA you said …
Actually, it is much worse as the troops are Federally administered and are entirely at the disposal of the government. Every part of the risk they take is a reflection of the settings into which they have been placed and the resources they have been supplied. The government knows in advance that some will be killed or suffer life-altering injuries.
The government thinks these human costs are worth it to serve the greater good. They thought the risks associated with the insulation program were worth it, though they hoped there would be no cost in human lives and were on plausible grounds hoping that that would be so.
I think a less ambitious but more carefully considered program would have reduced the risks but I don’t think they would have been entirely eliminated. Life involves taking risks and the more you do the greater the risk. Even a qualified tradesperson can fall off a ladder or be confronted with some novel and hazardous and unforeseeable turn of events.
Useful information, fairly put, anonymous@123, thanks.
Unlike lazy brain Fran Kelly on the ABC this morning, telling us that four deaths now made the issue a ‘game changer’, and then hitting young Hunt around with a wet lettuce, allowing him to announce three or four times, unchallenged, that there are now 1000 ‘live’ rooves for which Garrett should take personal responsibility. Exactly 1000 apparently, no more no less, and he knows.
Whatever, Abbott has now comprehensively stuffed up the opposition attack by more or less accusing Garrett of murder. Tanner is now on his case, and by the weekend everyone will be sick of it all, and Garrett will remain standing as Environment Minister.
And then Rudd PM should think seriously about a funding boost to his administration (or at least the ending of the much-hated (in)efficiency dividends), if he is going to demand that federal public servants administer giant stimulus programs all across the country at the drop of a hat. We got deregulated and privatised over the past decade, all the red tape was cut, and government got out of the way, remember?
And Abbott should look in the mirror and ask himself what happened to the thousands of highly trained and respected trades inspectors and regulators that this country used to have, the “armies of inspectors” that Kerry O’Brien demanded Garrett produce out of his bottom the other night…
Like they say, you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
Garrett should have thought of this before he sold his soul and sucked up to LaborMates. OK it was Latham’s labor and showed promise of being interested in doing the right thing, standing up the the US FTA, preserving the PBS and, shock horror, putting the mocker on the Parliamentary Super-Super Super Scheme, maybe he can be forgiven for being tricked into signing on.
But when things got serious, he should have twigged that his bad breeding, not having LaborMates DNA, meant he would be condemned to just being Julia and Bev’s bitch. Surely no-one for a moment, apart from maybe Polished Pate Pete himself, kids themselves that the prime purpose of the rushed rollouts of scads of shiny green stuff was about Teh Environment: it was to give Julia’s constituency, the union (and labor hire operations)-fodder, something easy and profitable to do, per the payback deal for Julia getting the unions to pay for Kev’s Ascension. Chapter and Verse from the LaborMates gospel.
And then he should have said, ‘Buggar that for a joke, I’m gonna make an honest man of me’ and done a Julian McGauran/ Ronan Lee, and signed on as lower decks crew for the Good Ship Bob&Christine. He’s soiled shopgoods now, and B&C would have to think at least twice about taking him in, cuckolded as they were with Ronan.
I’d like to preface this by stating I reckon if Howard was in charge and this happened then no heads would roll. It would be knocked down to the ALP states in terms of responsibility.
We can argue untill the cows come home about this.
I. Don’t. Care.
I hold the ALP to different standards. Heads have to roll from the bottom to the top. It’s only four people doesn’t hold water.
Garrett needs to apologise. And resign. As do the people under him all the way down to the pointy end.
Rudd sould also look at his oversight in this and consider resigning or an early election.
Oh spare us, tssk.
Come on Joe2. If this was back in the Howard days we’d be demanding scalps all the way to the top. (And of course Howard would ignore it. Because ministerial accountability was only ever meant to apply to the ALP, not his lot.)
Shit a brick tssk, I think every politician should resign every time someone dies unless it is of natural causes, but even then we might be able to link it to a politician in some way or other. We should start with ministers for defence, aviation, infrastructure (including roads, so lots of potential there) aboriginal affairs and of course health.
We must also include ministers for arts because I was almost bored to death at the last govinment funded play that I went to see.
As a concerned
trollvotor I demand no less.Hey not to mention voter.
tssk, if this’d happened during the Howard Miracle, the deaths would probably have been built-in.
You’re barking up the wrong tree here.
To be fair though this looks like it was the consequence of poor OH&S planning around the scheme. Something that the Libs would definately not fared better in (wouldn’t they see it as an unfair impediment to small business and go on and on about the personal responsibility of the worker).
We should expect the ALP to be better, why the unions aren’t demanding scalps is a mystery.
Anonymous @ 123 – I wonder if another way they could have reduced the risk would have been to require that any insulation installed under the program had to be done with someone with at least a years worth of experience personally supervising.
There was a description in the paper of the circumstances of the most recent electrocution death. A business started up by a couple of young guys who realised they could make a bit of money by going through an area offering free insulation – sounds like they had no previous experience with insulation. They were also working in the roof at the time their employee died and probably were as much at risk of electrocution as their employee. More a case of gross inexperience and naivety than exploitation.
joe2 @ 119 – my understanding is that due to its popularity (eg very poor planning) the money for the scheme has almost run out although it was meant to last until 2013. So a bunch of people have invested time and money and been trained up and won’t have any work unless more money is found. Its another example of a boom/bust cycle the government seems to like encouraging especially in green industries.
Tssk@129 “Howard would ignore ..ministerial accountability.”…
Except in the case of Ian Campbell, who had to walk the plank cos he “showed a lack of judgment by meeting with Brian Burke” and got caught, thereby taking the heat off Kev just as the 07 campaign was being turned up.
( Interesting timing it was: Costello lit the Brian Burke Dinner fuse on 1/3/07 in the house just after, 27/2/07, Kev had the temerity to finger Howard for having a quiet little private chat with former Lib Party bagman, Ron Walker, Hugh Morgon and Robert de Crespigny about their Australian Nuclear Energy Limited vehicle, which was conveniently set up a couple of days before JH set Ziggy up to find a case to going nuclear with 25 plants.
It might also be remembered that it was one Peter Garrett who pushed a big red publicity button outside the house, in the SMH, “I think it’s important that the Prime Minister answer these questions and inform the Australian people of whether or not his Government has had discussions with Mr Walker about these proposals”. They want his blood for that)
Campbells “lack of judgement” was serious, a hanging offence, not like the lives of a few hundred not even temporary Australians, like say in SievX: who walked the plank over that? Only Kim Beazely, effectively.
.
The only reason Ian Campbell was asked to fall on his sword was because they thought his political corpse would skewer Rudd on the way down.
But we all know that. And it doesn’t matter. Howard isn’t even in parliament now.
Danny @ 126 I hate to throw cold water on your delightful insider narrative but it would be hard to imagine any industry sector more anti-Labor and less likely to get favours from Julia Gillard than labour hire companies. And I suspect the proportion of domestic insulation workers who are financial union members is somewhere well south of the national average.
Exactly my point: there is no Tory moral high ground. JH may not be in parliament, but his ghost is.
And I reckon history matters: the detail of that incident, the lead up to the Australian Nuclear Energy Company play Howard had in play, reveals that Labor’s objection was voiced by Garrett “The Prime Minister (comes) back from America and suddenly become born again for nukes…is not committed to renewable energy.. not addressing climate change and finding those necessary alternatives that will make up the energy mix”.
We can’t be reminded enough that the Tories, and maybe also trueblue LaborMates, as distinct from Garrett, don’t give a toss about Teh Environment. Maybe Malcolm.
Now there’s a thought: Malcolm and Pete go off and form a ginger group.
“joe2 @ 119 – my understanding is that due to its popularity (eg very poor planning) the money for the scheme has almost run out although it was meant to last until 2013.”
Where did you get that “understanding”, Chris?
As far as I know, there has been no announcement, of that kind, from the government; just speculation from attack journalists who know diddly-squat, but don’t let that stop them. And that source referred back to, by the latest story teller, as if it was a fact.
“We can’t be reminded enough that the Tories, and maybe also trueblue LaborMates, as distinct from Garrett, don’t give a toss about Teh Environment. Maybe Malcolm.”
Maybe not, danny@138
http://www.solomontimes.com/news.aspx?nwID=2632
Ken: Glad you’re enjoying it, and I take your point. Sure the labor hire companies are about as a priori loved and loving as a saturday night whore, but we’re all pragmatists now, and even they will have noticed the upturn in their percentage takings from the increased client throughput courtesy of the Madam’s (via gopher Pete’s account of course) copious funding purse, and all done with just a nod and a wink.
It’s a faustian bargain of course which should come back to bite them. The businesses that have presented the invoices will be in the main set up by in-the-know, (like you get to be from being in a culture like a trade union), enrepreneurial ex-and current tradies, and they will have sourced the young hungry grunts via the friendly local shylock labor hire outfit.
My understanding is the basis of these vultures getting a cut is that they do the governence, check training and quals, before recommending to the firm. It could be that the labor hire layer is where it fell down badly, they will be seen to not have done their bit proper-like, they’ll get their long-deserved come-uppence, and carry the can. Conveniently, it’s an arguement for the unions taking over the labor hire firm role, and its percentages.
What downside? Elegant I call it. And while they’re at it, who better to do the training of the apprentices than the masters’ association, the trade unions?. Isn’t that why Julia has a super department, employment and education?
AS for the number of individual grunts carrying a card, that’s not as important as the aggregate cash-flow in the sector. OTOH, even the sweaty youths will work out whose delicate hand is ultimately feeding them, and what she stands for, and they just might end up paying those dues.
.
I’m with Andrew Bolt on this one. If the government ( *any* government ) can’t run so much as an insulation boondoggle without major fsuckups, why-in-the-fuck does anyone here think they can handle – oh I don’t know – health, education, roads, industrial policy, welfare, aboriginal issues etc, etc. In fact anything at all!
“I’m with Andrew Bolt on this one.”
Way to lose your audience from the start. What a goose.
Under the previous Fed. Govt’s ‘Investing in Schools’ Program ($1billion) which was rolled out likewise across every school in the nation 2003-06 (?), dodgy contractors crawled out esp. in largely unregulated areas like putting up shade structures & laying softfall etc. The funds were up to $150k per school which meant small refurbishments, softfall, shade and computers etc, unlike the current stim. package which involves building big structures etc.
Our P&C contracted a cowboy outfit who had taken on so many contracts at once, that they were picking up workers at the pub…which we found out too late.
They were fcuking awful to deal with; leaving softfall chemicals unsecured in the playground until made to lock them away… by like me, who took on the site manager role once it was obvious they were not to be trusted, and I’d put together the original grant…you know how it goes.
When they dug the holes for this huge shade structure one Saturday already past the project deadline (the holes many metres deep into sand and more than half a metre across etc) – they were then going to leave them over the weekend with just some crates *placed* over them with no safety fencing in a playground where local kids come into the playground to play….. or spray graffiti. Total front page story just waiting to happen.
So there I am with a group of four or five blokes in their twenties in their truck about to drive off having ignored my increasingly heated requests to secure the holes.
I had the mobile next to the ear ringing Workcover before they finally got out of the truck and bodgily secured the holes with whatever they had lying around as they hadn’t brought anything. Looking back I should have rung Workcover anyway.
I stayed on guard until well after dark, and was back at the crack off. I managed to contact the owner with my Workcover threats and they returned the next morning, erected the huge poles (which had been delivered and also left unsecured) & poured the concrete footings which thankfully was the only proper structural part of the contract with them.
It was then approx 12 months of back and forth and an inbox of insane ‘bush lawyer’ emails from this cowboy owner and two appearances at the CTTT (Consumer, Tenancy and Trader Tribunal) before the rubber softfall part of the contract was re-done to a proper standard. I spoke to a number of principals who were having the same problems with this contractor including leaving unsecured holes in their playgrounds etc. Unfortunately our P&C had contracted them, not the School, so it was us parents who were totally up the shitter if anything had happened.
This was a Federal Govt scheme which was set up to bypass State Depts of Education and for the funds to go directly to the school or school community entities etc.
And it wasn’t just the owner/foremen who were totally unconcerned by any OH&S issue but the workers as per above. People who are not properly trained working for firms who do not have proper processes across the board, is the ideal recipe for workplace accidents.
Peter @142 (subsequently derided)
“I’m with Andrew Bolt on this one.”
Ain’t politics a bitch? As Mark Twain said it “creates strange bedfellows”. Best thing to do if you find yourself stuck in a bed with Andrew Bolt is to make sure you’re both sleeping back-to-back.
Flippancy aside, the more I hear about this issue, the more I’m pulled back to my position in #10. Regardless of the merits of the scheme as a way to reduce energy consumption, Peter Garrett’s personal charisma or the fact that it seemed like a good idea at the time, the outcome has been disastrous for the 4 people who died because the scheme was rorted by cowboys who didn’t much care about OH&S and the Queensland householders whose houses might have electrified ceilings.
It’s time for Garrett to take one for the team.
joe @ 139 – Here’s a couple of links. One from the ABC and if you think they’re just plain lying then one from Christine Milne saying very similar things. She has several posts on the topic at her site.
Perhaps there have been no announcements from the government because Garrett is too busy on other things and they have no idea what they’re going to do about it yet?
Marks @114: that is the second time that a respondent on LP has implied that I’m sailing to close to a legal breeze. I’m not intimidated and never have been. If you don’t think what I’ve written has foundation then fine but otherwise you are invited to attempt aerial fornication wtih yourself.
adrian @147
As the person who’s going to be the first one to find himself at the sharp end of a defo action if a public figure takes exception to something published on this site, Mark is entitled to to point out when commenters are sailing close to a legal breeze. I know I would. It’s not my place, but I invite you to do what you invited Mark to do.
Hey Adrian – are you the same grammar cop Adrain that used to hang out at RoadToSurfDumb? I notice you didn’t answer the question – but then again I seem to recall that you never do
Oops – anthony @ 147, of course.
Just as I said, Chris, speculation only and no government decision, so far. What is to stop the government providing extra funds to keep up with demand for a program with an embarrassment of popularity?
I read the Milne stuff and think she is in danger of helping crush something she should be encouraging.
How about this comment from her?
“CHRISTINE MILNE: And I have written to the auditor general asking him to have a very good look at this program because it was expected that the banks would provide checks of financing to the technology or service providers and not directly to the householder.”
She obviously has no trust in the people who would take out the loan, to do the right thing, preferring that shopkeepers report on them. And has no idea what a bureacratic and expensive mess that would be. Most people would be put off applying for what is an already carefully vetted loan not gift.
As a rule of thumb, Baldy just has to hang on for two weekends of new cycle. If he does that he will survive until the next SNAFU.
By god, I hope he does.
And thankyou Anonymous@123. That is a most interesting account. I still can’t quite figure out, though, how limiting the rollout just to builders would have been feasible given the scale of this project.
Elsewhere: Legal Eagle.
joe2 @ 151 – We’re left with speculation because the government has not made any statements about what is going to happen. What is not in dispute is that they funded for a certain number of assessments for a 4 year period and its going to run out about 3 years early. And the government does have a track record of canceling green schemes when the funding runs out at very very short notice leaving employees and employers hanging. If you’re a business based around the scheme or someone who may have paid thousands to become a trained accredited assessor it is reasonable to be very concerned if you will have any work in a few months time.
I think there needs to be some checking that the loans are used for what they are given. Its an $10,000 interest free loan for 4 years. If there’s no checking then you will get people who apply for the loan, and just drop the money into a high interest bank account.
Perhaps thats the point – you can have a slower rollout which is much safer, or a fast one with higher risk. Private industry gets criticised for making the “wrong” decision all the time
Geez, this insulation scheme was designed to be a Keynesian fiscal pump program.
Keynes himself opined that digging holes in the ground and filling them up again would count as a legitimate exercise in fiscal pump-priming.
What are graves but holes that you dig in the ground and then fill up again?
Moreover, rebuilding houses consumed by fire would have to count as a particularly intensive form of fiscal pump priming.
According to these criteria, the scheme appears to be working perfectly.
She obviously has no trust in the people who would take out the loan, to do the right thing, preferring that shopkeepers report on them. And has no idea what a bureacratic and expensive mess that would be. Most people would be put off applying for what is an already carefully vetted loan not gift.
actually that was how the scheme was originally designed; a householder would get their assessment identifying what items were eigible for a loan, the designated financial institution would receive that report and decide whether to give you a loan, and if yes would purchase the agreed items once finalised with the householder.
Now it might have changed for good reasons, not bad, but the fact remains that having already done over 200,000 assessments there is no proper auditing system in place for any part of this scheme. That is not my definition of due diligence.
How the loans are being managed is one of the more minor concerns that have been raised by the management of the program, as opposed to:
Allegations sent to Senator Milne and forwarded to the Auditor General include:
• failure to adhere to the promised 1,000 -2,000 limit on the number of assessors;
• failure to deliver on the promised online booking mechanism, and failure to provide or oversee the interim call centre booking process;
• failure to administer the conditions the Federal Government placed on its own program regarding conflicts of interest;
• failure to exercise quality control and due diligence in relation to the standard of training provided to prospective assessors, and the quality of assessments provided to consumers;
• failure to implement an audit facility within the program; and
• favouritism and discriminatory practises relating to access to work through the program.
please note the first line of that quote.
I’ve spent the last two weeks fielding hundreds of calls and emails from self-employed and small business people working as Home Sustainability Assessors, who are desperate because the government’s booking call centre has failed completely for 6 weeks now, leaving them without work. Some are also owed considerable sums by the dept which has repeatedly breached the 30 days terms of trade if even 10% of them are believed. People are going to the wall financially.
Now some might think it’s ok for the government to say ‘you got into this at your own risk’ to these people, but I have a rather different definition of what successful program design, delivery and compliance assurance looks like. It doesn’t include allowing the largest company in this business to have a preferential booking system that bypasses the call centre & allows it to book 30% of the work with only 7.7% of the assessor workforce.
check out the hansard of the senate estimates hearing on Tuesday the 9th – environment communication & the arts committee, start at page 85.
The premise and objectives of the Green Loans scheme are excellent ones, ones that the Greens completely support, but that doesn’t include excusing truly appalling mismanagement of the scheme. This is why we want it urgently fixed.
I’m now going to do my darndest to stay away from this thread for the weekend and beyond.
disclaimer in case it ain’t bleedingly obvious: I work for Christine Milne
Anthony Nolan @ 147.
I don’t really give a hoot about the legality of what you said.
However, if you have evidence, then you ought to go to the police.
If you haven’t then well, I know a guy at the pub who said {fill in own totally stupid accusation here} to validate a position that I haven’t got any credibility on, but hey the guy I know said…
Who exactly do you think is going to believe a ‘someone I know who really really knows – dinks’ type story? You would have been better to say IMO and leave it at that.
BTW for once I agree with Ken Lovell.
Peter Garrett obviously is in the wrong position. Shouldn’t he be in the music industry? Any sensible person though, would have foreseen the dangers and told him about it. Where are all these smart people who run Govt. (pun). Older homes are death traps anyway and need to be checked and fixed up.
Marks @158:
“However, if you have evidence, then you ought to go to the police.”
Thanks for your friendly advice. I see you are in mid-air and performing nicely.
Anthony, I bows to a true master.
Baiting us all with your ‘I know a man who…’ etc etc.
Responsibility to run a safe work place lies with the employers. In my own industry you are required to either be a licensed technician or to be working in direct supervision of a licensed technician…the latter situation requires the employer to sign a declaration re: their trainees. The government knows how to cover it’s arse in these matters, I’d be surprised if they didn’t.
In my experience, when I was working for others, the employers that tick all the boxes in terms of safety – do just that – tick the boxes. They send their staff off for the supposed ‘competency based training’ to get their ticket and then it’s back to business as usual. When you raise issues with them based on what you learnt, it’s ignored. It’s part of the reason I went out on my own, I hope I’m a better employer for having been through that.
Granted, some training requirements are simply ludicrous. In order to do a particular govt. job I needed to do a full day course, so that I could ‘gain competency’ in ..!!!….putting out ‘worker’ signs and witches hats, so I could park my vehicle on a roadside to do a vegetation survey. If some bureaucrat somewhere perceived a liability risk in that, I’m fairly sure they would have known the risks of sending people into rooves. [roofs??]
This schemes failures relate to a business culture that is greedily obsessed with exploiting weaknesses in a system. Same can be said for the Green Loans scheme. My sister trained as an assessor last year….I wont tell her story, because I haven’t asked her permission to.
I don’t take issue with schemes having some initial problems, my own industry suffered that, [inadequate training, ill-directed funding, nonsensical outcomes], but the problem lies in these schemes that are not designed to have any longevity. They provide no security for ordinary people who take great risks for limited opportunity. Indeed these ideas seemed to be hatched with the ‘serial entrepreneur’ [including training providers] in mind. It’s really disappointing to see ‘green’ industries tarnished in this way.
“a business culture that is greedily obsessed with exploiting weaknesses in a system.” … Welcome to Lurkstralia, on the take since 1792.
Danny, you obviously did not know Black Jack McEwen then. The Country Party was famous for them.
Lurks have been going on in Australia since 1788. The word itself came into being well before 1972. Go read CJ Dennis’ ‘Rose of Spadgers’ from 1924 for example.
Marks: dsylexia?
When I wrote 1792, I was referring to:
“The appointment of Major Francis Grose in 1792 – “proprietor” of the New South Wales Corps[v] – literally put the thieves in charge of the treasury. The quantities of land doled out escalated dramatically, as Grose allowed his officers to help themselves. By 1828 they had carved up more than 1.2 million hectares of land.[vi] Exploiting their trade monopoly and the leverage this afforded, these commissioned rogues expanded their holdings even further, hustling distressed mortgagees and broken-spirited grantees into trading land on fire-sale terms, often for little more than a guzzle of rum.”
MO’s're a bit more sophisticated these days, and the uniforms have changed, but the spirit’s the same.
As to the provenence of the word, the use of it in Proverbs 1:11 “let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause”, explained in the Geneva Study Bible commentary as “all crafty practises which tend to the detriment of our neighbour” is pretty much correct weight I reckons.
I humbly apologise – without reservation.
Our ABC has been replaying Very Small Business, and I can see similarities between Don Angel and the spivs and chancers who’ve got involved in roof insulating.
Marks: No wukkas, and actually thanks for the CJD reminder, & the venerable joke starting
“William Shakespeare and Ogden Nash are arguing who’s the best poet, so they go up to St. Peter … ” and ends with CJD’s rejoinder “Cripes, I’ve seen all the lurks and rackets, but check this bloke with his balls in brackets”
Back to topic, which will have legs in the wild if not here, does anyone else think Pete’s carrying the can on this: he was forced to rush this program, operating not as environmental minister per se, but as a good labor foot soldier, delivering wayne and julia’s, and God knows who else’s, ‘Make Work At All Costs!’ agenda.
George Megalogenis had an interesting line this morning on Insiders suggesting Rudd ( and I say et al) has an agenda to knobble the party environmentalist push: See what happens when we ask you guys to do something in the real world?
I suspect a lot of this comes down to Garrett’s inexperience. If Labor had put in a pollie who had had experience in the building unions (they do have some) to look after the programme, said pollie might have expected this widespread endemic capitalist shonkiness and been on the look out to control it. (They would never have been able to entirely prevent it.)
PB @168. I agree. It appers to me that they didn’t put a skilled industrial officer in Garrett’s minders. The party itself is highly incompetent. Notwithstanding Gillard’s left credentials and those of others it looks to me as if the ALP left has been totally hamstrung within the machine such that it doesn’t get the available appointmenets. I blame the dominance of pomo identity politics within tertiary institutions over the last two decades. Whole generations have been raised on nothing but Foucault, Bordieux and ‘bad girls’ feminism with the consequence that many of them think that the body is the prime site of resistance to domiinant discursive power. They then go on to get piercings and tattoos to signify their political radical consiousness. Political victory begins and ends with parliamentary ascendancy and a new tattoo. Working conditions are what other people experience, Somewhere else. Unless, of course, you are Bernie Banton in which case the ALP makes a martyr of you. Disgraceful to do that and not follow through everywhere elsewhere in OH+S.
You really know how to reduce an issue to the core elements of another issue, anthony nolan.
First time someone has identified the ALP as not caring about working conditions due to a preoccupation with fashion and the body.
anthony nolan@169: “I blame the dominance of pomo identity politics within tertiary institutions over the last two decades. Whole generations have been raised on nothing but Foucault, Bordieux and ‘bad girls’ feminism with the consequence that many of them think that the body is the prime site of resistance to domiinant discursive power. They then go on to get piercings and tattoos to signify their political radical consiousness….”
Hahaha, that is absolutely untoppable!
Did I miss out on something by not even thinking about getting a tattoo? (Friend of mine did have a butterfly tattooed on her bum, though.)
Mostly blood and pain, Paul. (Although if you’re drunk enough when you have it done, it doesn’t hurt too much.)
“raised on nothing but Foucault, bordeaux and bad girls” …untoppable…
Yeh Grace, I thought it sounded pretty attractive too, … the template Byronic University Curriculum, Swimming the Hellespont, and liberation military service being optional extension units. We can do a bit better these days with something other than bleeding being the medical answer for everything.
Fran Kelly from ABC Radio National should be sacked. Her puppet-string inspired interview of Mr Garrett during the week was deplorable, and she would do well to cut those strings and start using whatever brain she is carrying around and appropriately verse herself in the actual issue at hand.
The Minister has clearly acquitted himself on this issue and it would be a sad indictment on the democracy of Australia if he were to lose his job over this matter.
As many have already pointed out, there are way too many ill-informed, passive, near-sighted journalists floating around at the minute.
Rob@176: agree. Fran Kelly’s handling of this issue, particularly in the last two days of last week, is a text book example of a News Ltd/Liberal Party inspired media frenzy completely overwhelming the ABC, so that her questioning of various politicians on the issue was completely devoid of any original thinking, let alone research, beyond the Liberal Party talking points.
On Thursday 11 Feb last week at 1.30 pm, Garrett made a statement in the House of Representatives that detailed everything he had done over the past year to stay ahead of the problem. It is worth a read and is available in Hansard on the aph website (page 39). It would have been made immediately available to any ABC journalist who had enough interest to ask.
Fran Kelly clearly did not bother to read it, as evidenced by her questions to Hunt the next morning, that were absent any new lines of inquiry that might have suggested themselves to anyone who had read Garrett’s statement. She simply allowed Hunt to repeat ad nauseum his “13 complaints” (when, before or after July?) and “1000 live rooves” (a statistical estimate) without any challenge, similar to her lazy and fact-free interrogation of Garrett the morning before.
Fran Kelly was sitting back and reporting a football match – no engagement of the brain.
I finally switched off the radio in disgust, during her chat with Michelle Grattan after 8 am on Friday morning, when the foolish woman mused about why Abbott had, momentarily, shown some “sympathy” for Garrett the day before (which did not slow him down for long).
Here’s my take. Abbott had just been told about how Garrett had tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to rescue his late mother from a ferocious house fire, when he was 23 years old. Abbott was not “sympathetic”. He merely paused long enough to see whether anyone else would raise this, and then when they didn’t, he ploughed on to accuse Garrett of industrial manslaugher.
Mark Scott announced last week the formation of a research unit to back up the ABC newsrooms, which are apparently operating with no research staff (no wonder they read the papers in the morning). He better get it rolled out quickly. Fran Kelly is an embarrassment.
I should add that I have nothing personal against Fran Kelly. She has a beautifully modulated voice, perfectly suited to radio, she gets through an awesome amount of material every morning without too many stumbles, and she has a pleasant personality and a cool head. But I absolutely object to poor professional standards on the ABC, particuarly when it comes to analysing and reporting current political issues of interest to all Australians.
It beats me how, when the dingbats are in power, everyone left of Genghis Khan wants a change of guvimint, then fracture into groups hellbent on bringing down the alternative. Ken Lovell…spot on, Paul, yes there are people with better understanding of work practices, though the fact remains that it would be giving in to irrationality to suggest that a Minister can’t run a department without being a paid up member of whatever trade may be involved in carrying through the business of policy implementation. Jees..get together!
You are too kind, Grace! Her voice to me always has had an adolescent pitch, and I sense an almost girlish impatience to make sure every story comes across as she sees it.
Talking about voices and pitch, has anyone else picked a deepening of tone in Christopher Pyne? Or is it just years adding a little bit of gravitas? Give him time and he could become a likely leader as Joe Hockey looks less and less appetising. Pyne seemed less of a pip-squeak than usual speaking on Insiders this morning. Content I loathed but I found him personally less loathsome.
And you are far too kind to Chrissie Pyne, PatriciaWA! He needs a rap over the noggin with a runcible spoon, but I am sure we can leave that to the Red Fox when parliament resumes…
Interesting, isn’t Grace, how perspectives differ. Is there anything which one can describe objectively? I thought my comment on Pyne was a grudging concession to some improvement but you disagree and a Liberal supporter would have found my comment patronising in the extreme. I have to thank you, by the way, for my entirely new perspective on Peter Garrett.
You’re a good speller too!
It would be worth asking Tony Abbot if he thought it would have been fair to blame him for accidents on a hospital site that his department had let the contract for. Or, even more pertinent, ask him how it would have felt if he got the blame if there were problems in the construction of a private hospital that he had provided a subsidy for. We might also ask him whether he thinks it would have been his roll to decide to halt all construction on hospitals because of an accident on one of his hospitals?
The last thing we want is for health and environmental departments making decisions about construction safety or making decisions to stop construction. They haven’t the expertize and it doesn’t make sense for them to get the expertize.
The question that should be being asked is what the people who should be acting have been doing. Each of these deaths are required by law to be investigated by the appropriate OHS departments. On the face of it there certainly seems to have been a problem with electrical wiring and procedures for working in roof spaces. There also seems to have been a problem with the state of wiring in some homes.
I too have nothing personal against Fran Kelly; she is obviously an experienced operator who for years has delivered high-quality journalism. But in my opinion, her efforts last week were blatantly ignorant of the matter’s context. ABC should really do better and resist the urge to follow their commercial counterparts. Political discourse in this country is, like many others, becoming a sporting contest. ABC should remind themselves there is still an audience out there with a functioning brain, and it is entitled to some level of intellect!
Fran@124: Yes, it does.
The vehicle analogy doesn’t apply because vehicle manufacturers/salespeople aren’t responsible for driver training, and can’t specify what you do with it once you leave the lot. When you buy a vehicle it’s your money, whereas if you are receiving money from government it has a right to set conditions (including behaviours) under which you (don’t) get that money. Garrett should have set standards. He didn’t, and this is what happens when you set no standards.
Well, three cheers for you: now make the claim that everyone is just like you. See? This government thing is harder than you thought.
There are certain professions that you are explicitly prevented from practicing in the absence of suitable qualifications and licenses on your part, and this should have been one of them. No money should be available for those who cut corners, which requires that said corners be clearly specified and checkable.
Please reconsider your idea that the Australian Government is not responsible for conditions in Australian roof cavities, but is absolutely responsible for the whole of Afghanistan.
John D @ 183. Completely different case than the Garrett one.
JohnD @ 183 – I don’t expect the environment department to have construction expertise, but I do think they should be listening to the experts when advised that the way they are rolling out their program is going to result in higher risks than normal. And the department definitely does need to have enough expertise to be able to reasonably predict the potential downsides of throwing buckets of money around.
Andrew E, standards are set by the various workplace health and safety laws.
They are clear as to the responsibilities of employers and employees.
The laws were in place, they have competent (?) jurisdictions in place to administer them, there are penalties.
So whatever the blame to be directed at Peter Garrett, there is far more blame to be directed at those who failed to obey clear laws and those who failed to administer them.
So why is it that PG is being bollocked and those who had the power and those who had the responsibility to obey clear laws are getting off scot free?
The point is being completely overlooked that there are still plenty of people engaged on this and other programs who need the protection of these laws, and yet when the laws are being ignored and those supposedly administering the laws do not do so effectively, we do not focus on actions that will strengthen the laws and administration, but we want to dance around PG shouting ‘burn him, burn him’.
*shakes head*
Chris, if you had taken the time to read Garrett’s statement, that Grace Pettigrew kindly drew to everyones attention @177(halfway down page link below), you would have seen that the minister and his department listened to “experts” and responded to their concerns, as the roll out continued, quite robustly.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/reps/dailys/dr110210.pdf
joe2 @ 189 – Well pretty obviously his department did not respond adequately to their concerns given many of those stakeholders mentioned in his speech are claiming that their advice was not heeded. I guess his fallback position will be to blame Minter Ellison Consulting for their risk assessment. He might claim safety was a top priority, but I think its pretty clear that rolling out the program and getting jobs and money out into the community was the highest priority.
And I’ll note know that the audits they are planning to do are probably still inadequate in some states as they are only checking foil insulation installations. And given the large increase in ceiling house fires since the program started they should at the very least be warning homeowners who had insulation installed to check that insulation has not incorrectly been placed over downlights.
Chris, you need to broaden your mind. Why are the risks of installing insulation higher under the program? The risks associated with installing roof insulation are a constant; they do not change whether the installer is operating under a government-sponsored program, or the installer is contracted by a home builder to build a new house. Those risks are addressed by pre-existing building standards issued by Standards Australia. From the outset of the government program, those standards have been encapsulated in the program’s guidelines. Those Standards were required to be followed by all installers.
Just because an installer may be busy, short-staffed, under pressure to capture their share of the market because of a government-sponsored program does not mean the installer is absolved from their minimum responsibility to comply with Standards.
The logic that in such instances the Government should step in and “hand hold” contractors represents the ever-increasing mentality of shirking their obligation to take responsibility for one’s own actions.
Yeah, that’s a bit odd. The OH&S thing should be the responsibility of the individual companies involved. However the gold rush springing up of roof cowboys is within ministerial oversight.
In other words the bosses need to be charged for incompetance. But the ALP ministers from the bottom to the top, the entire chain really, need to take responsibility, report on what went wrong, what should be done to fix it and then resign.
It’s called accountablility and it’s something that should be resurrected.
If that’s the best defence Garrett can offer then he’s cactus – or he deserves to be. Good bloke, talented musician, not a bloody Liberal hypocrite notwithstanding. It wasn’t until two months after the first death of a worker installing insulation under the program (14 October) that Garrett announced the upgraded training requirement and, within the grace period he allowed employers to clean up their act, there was a further industrial death. He doesn’t come out of this looking very competent. If the best case that can be made for keeping him on is “he may be incompetent but he’s our incompetent” then stuff it.
No one’s arguing that the government should have held the hands of the installation contractors. We’re suggesting that Garrett take responsibility for his own inaction.
That’s factually incorrect Gummo; he banned metal fasteners for foil insulation on 1 November.
Well Grummo, you’d do well to read, and perhpas re-read, the Minister’s statement (referred to by a number of previous bloggers) which would go some way to illustrating the action taken by Mr Garrett from the outset.
Rob @ 191 – yes as tssk described the increased risk comes from deliberately creating a situation where a large number of people will enter an industry over a very short period of time. Its not just greedy evil business people that result in safety problems, but also the inevitable inexperienced and naive people. In at least one case publicised its pretty clear that the owners of the business were putting themselves at as much risk as their employee who died.
The employers (and to a certain extent employees) are not excused from their OH&S obligations. But that does not mean that Garrett does not bear some responsibility for creating a riskier environment in the first place.
Just to add another dodgy analogy – say a department store has a special sale where the first person to buy a certain product gets a free car. They do it to entice lots of people into their store. They are not directly responsible if someone in the wild rush to get to the counter assaults someone else to ensure they get there first. But they do bear some responsibility for creating the circumstances in the first place especially if they did nothing to reduce the increased risk – eg more security, limiting the number of people able to enter the store at a time etc).
My understanding is that at least one of the deaths was due to heat stroke, not electrocution. The safety problems with the program weren’t restricted to electrical safety The 1 November ban on the use of metal fasteners was a band-aid solution (no pun intended). Keeping the program running was given precedence over addressing the OH&S problems (IMO).
Chris, nice try but you are drawing an incredibly long bow with that analogy. So by extension of that logic, the Department would be responsible for inciting an assault despite the fact that it is a criminal offence to assaut someone under any circumstances?
My last comment was re Rob @195.
Re Rob @196:
Where do you think I found the quote from Garrett’s statement to Parliament from? No, I didn’t pull it out of my arse. And yes, I have read the whole of it, several times over. Another key element of Garrett’s defence is “I told lots of organisations who expressed concern that I was going to be very decisive and ministerial”. But what counts isn’t what he told people about how he intended to act, but how he actually acted.
I have spent most of my working life in the mining and construction industry. This includes a couple of years running a safety and training department as well as time running mineral processing plants. At the moment all we know is that one person died of heat exhaustion, one from driving a metal staple into a live wire and two from electrocution. We also know that a number of fires have occurred but we are not sure to what extent these were due to incorrect installation, defective wiring, failure to follow correct procedures or defective procedures. We also don’t know what action was taken by the relevant OH&S departments before and after the accidents nor to what extent the contractors and their employees failed to follow their duty of care.
I would have expected the relevant OH&S departments to have responded to the deaths and fires by acting quickly if there were obvious problems in addition investigating the incidents thoroughly to establish underlying causes. What surprises me is that it has been left to Peter Garret to ban the use of metal staples after the metal staple incident and then banning foil insulation after the following incidents.
The other obvious question is whether there is something different about the insulation being used now. Were there incidents before the start of the Garret program that should have been flagged that there has been a problem for years that should have been fixed?
If anything, Peter has been unusually hands on with the safety of this project. Kevin Rudd is correct to say that we should wait the results of the investigations.
Perhaps it would also be sensible to look at what should be expected of government departments that are letting contracts or simply subsidizing activities.
Perhaps Tony Abbot will claim his government would take personal responsibility for every tree they plant and lump of charcoal that gets sequestered. However, this doesn’t mean that it is good policy to divert ministers and departments away from what they really should be doing.
Grummo, I know the statement wouldn’t have come out of your arse; you’ve clearly got it from Hansard, but you had jumped to 2 months after the first fatality, which clearly misrepresented the FULL statement.
I recommend you go to the Department website; pull up the guidelines for the period 3 Feb 09 to 1 Jul 09 and let me know what it says about the obligation of installers and their employees concerning their obligations for safety. Cheers
There was a TV interview last week (of a union official in QLD I think) who stated that electrocution even with foil batt installation was not a problem in QLD prior to the program. That may well have been because the insulation business were mostly those who were interested in surviving for the long term and have had time to slowly train up new employees as they grew. Large time limited subsidies result in a bunch of people jumping in who only think of the short term.
And incidentally what does Garrett’s department they think is going to happen to all these new insulation installer businesses when this program ends? Or even the well established ones?
Chris @ 203, the point on rapid rollout is real and has been a (infamous) feature of the program. It represented a swift response to what was a marked deterioration in the economic conditions across the world which had the potential to precipitate the deterioration in our domestic economy. Would you prefer to have a Government who is slow to respond to these issues because there may be rogue opertors who will prioritise financial gain over the delivery of safe, quality living conditions for the community?
If Australia is to be regarded as a dynamic, competitive, FLEXIBLE (for all the conservatives out there) economy then we must have businesses in the community who also have the ability to respond to the delivery of such services in a quick and safe fashion.
Very good, Chris. Upping the ante, to the pont where the minister is now responsible for the future viability of the insulation industry. Maybe, when the Liberals take over, and all of the houses in Australia are insulated, they can provide those businessmen with a transition grant into the batt removal business, since energy saving and carbon emissions are such a waste of time.
joe2 – yes I do expect the government to consider the long term health of an industry when they intervene rather than just the short term benefits. Don’t we want sustainable industries and companies rather than encouraging them to maximise short term profit?
Rob @ 204 – fast, cheap and safe. Choose any two. Yes you make the point well that the primary aim of the scheme was to get money out. Having an environmental benefit was second and safety came after that. We criticise private industry all the time for prioritising their financial health over the safety of people. Perhaps we should do the same to governments? Yes I realise it often makes for very hard decisions both for companies and governments.
Exactly … installers should choose speed and safety. The latter was non-negotiable because it was mandatory. Cost is irrelevant as they were getting adequately remunerated for their services.
OK Chris, let’s get specific here. What particular measures should Garrett have undertaken over and above existing OH&S safety legislation and other regulations aimed at ensuring workplace safety?
And when you’ve described exactly what these measures are, please explain why they shouldn’t apply to every industry that puts workers in potentially dangerous situations, and why Garrett is being singled out as opposed to every other minister past and present who has failed to impliment the measures that you are suggesting?
And as I’ve said elsewhere, what about the approximately 40 deaths per year in the building industry and approximately 150 per year in the workforce as a whole? Why does the Liberal party (and some commenters here) suddenly give a stuff about these four? and are the Libs going to admit the despised unions have been right for the last few decades about the need for OH&S regs? Are they going to stop moaning about the “nanny state” and “anti business” next time regulations are proposed?
An effective registration process that excluded the cowboys from the national register would have been a good start. That definitely fell within the remit of Garrett and his Department.
Gummo@209, I think that Garrett attempted to do just that in an industry that previously seems to have been almost unregulated. I suggest you re-read Anonymous@123 to get an idea of the difficulties that were involved.
Chris@206, I suppose you would have the government sponsor the continued production of widgets after the demand for them, by consumers, has been completely satiated. You planned economy kind of guy, you!
joe2 @210
Thanks for the suggestion re #123 – may I suggest that you do the same, then go back to #71:
I think you’ve shot yourself in the foot in citing these comments as evidence of the difficulties of the process – it sounds like those difficulties arose from insufficient resource allocation – poor planning – and bad management. Still Garrett’s responsibility.
My foot is fine Gummo@211. Lucky I have two!
The point I am making is that you can see strong effort being made in the face of demand that no one could possibly predict.
I think it has to be said , that registered builders, unions, waring insulation manufacturers* and various other players might have aggendas apart from worker safety, and a minister would have to weigh up those considerations in the light of wanting to get on with the job- which was actually about creating jobs and sensible infrastucture in a timely manner to ward of a recession.
* eg polyester vs fibreglass
Gummo, adrian wanted specifics! Something we can work with. You have put forward that:
That is indeed what was in place from 1 July last year! An Installer Provider Register was created. In order to register, installers needed to, inter alia, attest to having met the competencies required of an insulation installer. As the program was rolled-out, this Register was used as the basis from which households could select a contractor. A list of installers whom had been deregistered from the program due to non compliance was created, as a veritable “name and shame”.
>
Given that fortune-telling is not a recognised skill of any human being, how is it possible to accurately predict which operator has the potential to be a “cowboy” BEFORE an installation is carried out? In order to have prevented the malpractice of an installer – and by extension the tragic fatalities we have seen – then surely we must know of them before they carry out any work?
>
Now, I am no insulation installer. In fact I am not even a tradesperson. But I could guarantee that there was not one registered installer who, at the time of their registration, signed off on their and their employees’ competencies and attached a caveat that said “incidentally, I may have to hire some inexperienced employees to help me with this project, so be mindful that the quality of my work may not meet with the standards you have prescribed in the published guidelines”. Suitably armed with this information, the Department proceeded to include this contractor on a “cowboys” list.
>
They wouldn’t get any business!
The only way to mitigate the risks of rogue operators – or “cowboys” – is as a result of the processes described above. Processes put in place by the Department from the beginning. The only flaw being the possibility that installers are happy to sign off on fabrications and/or are happy to take money for unsatisfactory work.
>
Unless, that is, you have a crystal ball, Gummo?
Exactly Rob. It’s obviously easy for Chris and others to harp on about the need for this that and the other, and hey, everyone should resign, but when called on to exercise some grey matter and come up with specific measures should have been taken, they draw a blank.
The only one who’s responded so far has come up with something already in place.
Just a couple of suggestions:
- Required that companies who access the program must have a worker with X (to be filled in by an expert) amount of experience in installing insulation personally supervise each job (eg be there in the roof). This would most likely force the program to ramp up more slowly but safely. As more workers gain the required practical experience the more people there are available to supervise. It also encourages more long term planning by companies.
- Electrical wiring checks (and safety fixes applied) to be done on houses older than a certain age before insulation is installed. Since the government was so desperate to spend money this would have been another to stimulate the economy and make the insulation program safer. It’d also have the side effect of making houses safer for the occupants and other workers who visit.
joe2 @ 210 – no, I’d rather the government get out of creating boom/bust situations and encourage sustainable businesses. Luckily if the government tries it in the industry I work in they’ll discover there is no end to the amount of software that people want written. They’ll also discover that the more people you put on the project the slower it goes
I can vouch for a selected list of installers being clearly available, up on the government website, when I started looking into the grant before the program even started officially rolling.
I ended up getting 4 quotes as I hummed and harred about price and type of insulation. All the installers seemed professional enough and were local tradies. I’m really happy with the installation and product though I needed to add extra cash to get exactly what I wanted and I did keep an eye on the proceedings. Helped out, actually.
Maybe I am a bit defensive about all this, but I can tell you nothing shits me more than when I hear these ignorant liberal fools bagging “pink batts”, (I don’t actually think many are pink anymore, anyway), as if the whole project is a complete disaster.
There have also been very sad consequences but I still think the blame keeps being sheeted home to everyone but those most responsible.
The point you are ignoring is that those efforts were not effectual. Nor were they particularly strong. The second point in that sentence is covered in Gartrett’s statement to Parliament:
Not only was the increase in demand predictable, it was predicted, by various State public servants. Continuing, here’s the strong effort that Garrett’s department put into dealing with that problem:
Translation: they covered their arses with reams of laser printed A4 documents.
Now @ 213 you allege:
No it wasn’t. We have 4 workplace deaths since the rollout of the program to demonstrate that. It’s doubtful that the changes Garrett has announced have substantially improved the situation. Eligibility criteria for registration are particularly problematic:
There’s no requirement that companies and individuals have previous experience in providing building services – impressive as that phrase “legal entity” looks, it’s still open slather.
Company incoorporated, or trade name registered, a week before the registration might give you the hint there’s something to question. But that’s just an example – the real failure of your defence of Garrett on the basis that no-one is a fortune teller is the underlying assumption (frequently re-asserted) that it was impossible for him to know in advance that the deaths and other failures would occur. That’s not the case against him – the case against him was that he and his department should have known the risks, were told about the risks and did little more about them than a lot of energetic dithering and bungling.
adrian @ 214:
I repeat it was not in place – what was in place was a registration process that was badly thought out, understaffed and badly managed. That is very different from an “effective registration process that excluded the cowboys…”
And that’s enough on this thread for today – it’s gone round in too many circles. Largely because people keep repeating arguments that have been thoroughly refuted (rather than merely weakly rebutted).
Ditto Gummo Trot. Well said.
Thoroughly refuted my arse.
More like empty bombast, peppered with untenable assertions lacking a commercial context.
Ditto Rob. Well said.
This parrot is dead.
No its not.
Yes it is.
Well, now that it’s obvious that there aren’t any LP commenters who can mount a cogent defence of Peter Garrett keeping his position as Minister for the Arts, Heritage and Environment, maybe it’s time to move onto the meta-discussion of why so many people tried so strenuously to mount such a defence.
First, a patronising attempt to close down debate because that’s “enough for today” kids, then a go at changing the thread discussion subject and finally a premature victory call.
I think you are trying to insulate yourself from the failure, Gummo Trotsky.
Chris @ 215 (I think) and others – I’ve been involved in ISO9000 compliance audits. Just because someone gives you some paper that claims something or other is happening doesn’t make it so. Don’t be too disappointed, but people tell lies, and many of them are happy to sign a written-down lie.
“the blame keeps being sheeted home to everyone but those most responsible.
And how appalingly low rent these creeps are:
Names are being named and surpise, surpise, the ‘company’ website “is currently being redesigned”.
But google’s cache displays the text that used to be there, and one finds that several outfits use it cut and pasted verbatim (including english language mistake: radiant is a noun?)
Insert ‘company-du-jour’ text at beginning and end and voila: Pete, and Julia, and Wayne And Kev are your parent’s male siblings. The as-yet-unnamed, (but if they’d done my home, I’d be getting the work checked quick smart) ones using the same product are still in business it would seem from their functioning websites.
These guys are so lazy: the chinglish sales text of course came with the product FOB guangdong: minimum order 9600 sq mt, supply ability 28800 sq mt/day, ( 3 batches a day, talk about just enough, just in time) delivery 3 days after payment, price $US55-115. Each house only uses a few bucks of foil ex-shenzhen, we’re talking major profitability. Perfect carpetbagger stuff, staying a week ahead.
The outfit named was until very recently a call centre operator, whois searches show one of the others using this product was in tyre sales, there’s a security camera mob (I’d really trust them, not). So this is the globalised economy, being at the arse end of the asian business model, the no-prisoners race to the bottom.
Getting back on topic…doesn’t adherence to the Westminster system mean the Peter Garrett is actually obliged to resign?
If he doesn’t…would this result in a constitutional crisis?
No and definitely No, Mr Hunt puppet @225.
Hunt puppet?
Well tssk@227, you do seem to be predictive of his and every Liberal talking point on this matter. The constitutional crisis line seems crazy enough to come of Hunt’s mouth any time soon.
joe2 @ 228:
Wouldn’t that make tssk a Hunt puppeteer?
Yep, fine, Gummo.
I know, for sure, that Tssk drives me to teers on a regular basis.
And yer, I know I can’t spell.
The thing is, Gummo, sparkies have been dying in rooves for years. You’re not going to blame Garrett for all of them, are you?
Tssk @ 225 that is ridiculous even by your standards.
Just refresh your memory about the performance of all the Liberal ministers during the Howard years. Bronwyn Bishop is as good a place as any to start – the Minister for Kerosene Baths. Or the smug pricks who blandly assured us they knew nothing about AWB sending hundreds of millions to Saddam just months before we invaded the place. Then remind us how many resigned, and how many constitutional crises we experienced.
Not to mention, Ken, the fact that the context for the working out of industrial relations actively subverted OH&S. Excluding union representatives from workplaces, the fracas over the Building Industry star chambers, work choices in general etc …
Abbott talks about industrial manslaughter, but his party everywhere has actively resisted such provisions as part of an OHS regime. His party wants to “break the power of the union bosses” which is really the spin merchant’s way of leaving workers with nobody to safely report OHS compliance to without reprisal. Scratch them a little and they will say they are in favour of “common sense” approaches to OH&S, more spin for employers making it up as they go along.
At least Julia has the decency to be out there trying to hose it down.
As she should since her’ and Kev’ and Wayne’s fingerprints are all over the scene: it served their MakeWork / EconoFix agendas much more than it was driven by environmental principles.
How brilliant they must be feeling, Rudd and co’s real labor getting to shaft the Latham new boy.
The insulation program, regardless of the which motivation came first, was and is, the most sensible and practical way of doing something immediate about the environment.
In all of this bun fight, it is a truth that has been completely lost sight of, because journos are more interested in the fight and probably wouldn’t know anyway.
DI (nr) @232
So here we go round the circle yet again, with the argument that death is a routine occupational hazard in the building industry, so it’s unfair to hold Garrett responsible for a few extra deaths that happened because a few unsavoury types rorted his home insulation scheme. According to the annual report of WorkCover NSW:
Care to take a guess at how many of those 9 deaths in the construction industry were “sparkies dying in rooves”? Or maybe provide some data to back up your assertion that it’s been going on for years?
Joe2: “The insulation program .. was and is, the most sensible and practical way of doing something”… Quite, indeed, I reckon….
The (pdf) Australian Engineered, Australian made, Australian guaranteed reflective batts I got put in, using a company that’s been in the game for over a decade, have made quite a difference.
They may even be keeping the ceiling from leaking, the amount of water dropping out of the sky in Brisso is unreal.
I didn’t say it was right, Gummo. I just don’t believe you can sheet responsibilty home to Garrett.
David @ 225 – agreed there is a lot less you can reasonably do when people are just willing to lie. But some of the problems are due to ignorance and some greed, not deliberate malice.
joe2 @ 237 – I agree that an insulation program was a very good idea. Just poorly implemented. This seems to be a recurring theme with Garretts department – great ideas, poor implementation. It shouldn’t be hard to predict that there would be a very high demand for free stuff. Maybe they just need some experts from other departments to help them with the financial and incentive side of things.
If there wasn’t the huge pressure to spend money fast it could have been rolled out in a slower more sustainable manner that would not attract nearly as many shonky people. Eg make the rebate available to home owners for a limited period after they purchase a house. And make a rebate available to new home owners who insulate more than the mandatory minimum – having been through the building process recently and talking to lots of sales people its apparently pretty common for people to push for the minimum amounts of insulation be installed just to save a few dollars in the short term.
Heh, pools of water sitting on foil batts with the water dripping down the sides onto 240V power cables. That sounds like a recipe for something exciting – a damp ceiling will be the least of your worries.
Danny @ 226 – just because I believe Garrett bears some responsibility for what has happened doesn’t mean I think the people running the insulation companies bear any less responsibility for the accidents and deaths which have occurred.
Eg if a university decides to save a bit of money and does not provide sufficient lighting on campus at night and as a result the number of assaults is higher than it otherwise would be, it doesn’t make the people doing the assaulting any less responsible. But the university should bear some responsibility for the higher crime rate.
Chris, try living with the reality of the situation, instead of in some ideal world where everything runs to a blueprint. The fact is, there was “huge pressure” to get this baby up, for the other very good reason, apart from the environmental value, that a recession was in the wind and jobs were drying up.
Maybe you should ponder the implifications of that at another more recent post.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/02/16/the-lifesaving-stimulus-package/
joe2 @ 243 – yes its a complicated situation for governments. Saving lives in one area may cause lives to be lost in another. Maybe Rudd was right declaring on war on everything
Chris thanks for your concern, it was just a throwaway line about the amount of rain, but now you mention it, I’ll just nip up there with my metal handled mop …
Actually the day the youngsters, ( even though the invoicing company was reputable on paper, has been at it for over a decade) put mine in was the day after Garrett had made metal staples illegal.
They turned up for the job, and I asked “what do you use for staples” and they said “these metal staples” and I said “not in my house you’re not… as of midnight last night using metal staples is illegal, you won’t be covered, I won’t be covered, and your boss won’t be covered, you better ring him and find out what you supposed to do”.
Which they did, and came back with “Oh he forgot to tell us”. So even firms with solid reputations maybe dropped their game, I guess for fear that the cowboys would mop up all the business while they were dawdling on duty of care. It took months for them to get back and do it after I kicked up a stink, and when they did, they sent a senior guy, and I’d lifted some tin to let air and light in so they could work more comfortably and they (and I from the outside) could see what they were doing. Which they appreciated, so much so that he was happy to put the tin back on, and while he was at it, went around with his silicon gun.
But nonetheless, I’m in for the checkup, by a proper sparkie, and I presume (s)he’ll test wiring for electrical leakage as part of the tag and test procedure. In some cases they will find defective wiring, and you can see what’s gonna happen.
Someone will argue a defect notice should be issued on the spot, like for a car, and in some cases the owners ( but not the renters) will be able to say, “Good-o, fix it now please”, and everyone’s a winner.
In other cases, f’rinstance the rental scenario, or maybe the householder just doesn’t have the readies to pay another full price tradie bill, and it won’t be on just then. It gets a bit messy – doess the house get condemned till sorted, have its electricity turned off? If so where does everyone go in the meantime? If the sperkie has to come back a second time with another call out fee, it gets even more expensive.
That’s where the interest-free Green Loans should have kicked in, to take the pain off tradie fees if it’s a major job to get insulation-ready, and that’s what the $200 assessment should have covered, the roof safety assessment and touch up by someone really qualified in that micro-trade, not the waste of everyone’s time that was rolled out when someone born yesterday asks you “Do you know about appliance standby power/compact fluoro’s/ energy rated appliances etc ” and ticks boxes.
Not that I imagine the sparkies union and the tradies themselves would get with the program to put together and administer a training program which imparted real knowledge and skills, like an upgraded tag and testing competency . That would eat into their slices of the pie, we can’t have that.
One things for sure, whatever happens, sparkies will be the winners. I reckon they could have stopped this program in its tracks early before anyone got hurt, and there’s a bit of ambulence chasing about their part in it. Once upon a time the trade would have gone out on strike, across the board. That would have prompted a better look at what could and should happen.
IMO.
Joe2, off topic for a moment but you have me all wrong. You seem to think I’m some sort of Lib. I wouldn’t vote for them in a pink fit. I expect better of the ALP. A lot better. If you want to make an arguement against my views you could do worse than suggesst that I’m over compensating out of frustration of the Howard government’s apparent complete abandonment of the Westminster system. And yeah…I would say that colours my view a lot.
“That’s where the interest-free Green Loans should have kicked in, to take the pain off tradie fees if it’s a major job to get insulation-ready, and that’s what the $200 assessment should have covered, the roof safety assessment and touch up by someone really qualified in that micro-trade, not the waste of everyone’s time that was rolled out when someone born yesterday asks you “Do you know about appliance standby power/compact fluoro’s/ energy rated appliances etc ” and ticks boxes.”
Danny, I am not sure you fully understand what the Green Loan scheme is all about.
If the process of installing insulation -once an assessment had concluded that to be a priority- required some preliminary electrical work that would be perfectly acceptable as part of expenditure from the loan. It would just mean that there would be less money to spend in another area.
Also, you are someone who the Assessment is likely to be less useful because of prior knowledge of how to cut back on energy use. The program is designed for everybody and needs to include baby steps that may seem annoying.
For instance, some would not have a clue that leaving the bar fridge on, with nothing in it, is costing them a bomb. It seems very basic but it is comprehensive and you can be guaranteed that the government is getting some pretty interesting stats for the 200 bucks from the free time of residents.
Do not forget that it is also a way of providing work for a different kind of folk than those prepared to do grunt work under a hot tin roof. Older people most likely, who are in need of top up employment of say 2 or 3 appointments a week.
The insulation you chose looks pretty canny. I had not seen it before. We went for locally made polyester recycled from plasic bottles.
O.K. tssk.
I think your overcompensation suggestions are often so extreme, that if Labor were to follow them, they would be so busy being ultra perfect that it would never be in government. We would be stuck with Howard like goons permanently.
Point taken Joe2. My worry is if we go soft on em we end up with a situation like in NSW where the ALP are too complacement and the opposition are hopeless.
joe2 @ 247 – agreed the assessors need to cover the basics because so many people out there have no idea at all about things like how much an extra fridge or freezer is really costing them. But assessors do need to be able to understand and explain the more complicated things which can be done – and there are some out there who do – and really most of the concepts are not that complicated. A friend had an assessor who was very competent – he already has solar hot water, PV, water tanks, good insulation, summer shading of windows etc so most of the easy stuff was already covered.
Danny @ 245 – wasn’t sure if you were serious about water or not. One of the downsides to foil batts is that after a while the foil accumulates dust on it and with sufficient dust the reflective foil part doesn’t really work very well (one reason why its preferable to use sarking when building). So you really might want to be going up into your roof space to clean your foil batts eventually
When it comes down to it, Chris, if people already know enough about energy efficiency they should not have an assessment because it would be a waste of time for them.
If they want to get a Green Loan they need to sit the assessment exam, along with everybody else, to test their bona fides. Then, when they approach the approved financial institution, it will be considered whether they have the capacity to pay back the money they intend to spend on their proposed and vetted good works.
No doubt there will be future claims that “Peter Garrett drove me to financial roon”, though. They are out to get him and the government and sadly wise programs are being drowned without any thought of their benefits.
Spot on joe2 re: benefits @ 251: a program that combined economic stimulus at a precarious time for the country and a tangible, environmentally effective mechanism – both virtues in my opinion irrespective of what side of the political fence you are sitting – yet one side of politics wants to expediently ignore the fundamental obligations of the specialists who are charged with installing the gear.
Should we seek the resignation of the Minister (or Congressperson) in charge of “cash for clunkers” as well? Apparently many went and purchased a Toyota Prius Hybrid, fully equipped with faulty accelerators. Now that’s surely the program’s fault, isn’t it? God knows why Toyota have wheeled-out the PR big guns, they are not needed!
joe2 – but thats not how the program works. To qualify for the a Green Loan you first *have* to have a qualified assessor do the assessment first. And at least theoretically you can only use the money for something which the assessment has recommended.
Unless you’re suggesting that a whole bunch of people become assessors and assess their own home (which is probably prohibited anyway)? And people are paying several thousand dollars to become qualified assessors.
The $10,000 4 year interest free loan is worth applying for even if you don’t really need the loan. Probably equivalent to just giving people about $2-3k (more for those on higher incomes).
“To qualify for the a Green Loan you first *have* to have a qualified assessor do the assessment first.”
Never said otherwise, Chris, but it is possible for people to take advantage of the assessment without taking out the loan.
“The $10,000 4 year interest free loan is worth applying for even if you don’t really need the loan. Probably equivalent to just giving people about $2-3k (more for those on higher incomes).”
That would not be in the right spirit of the loan, of course, because it may disadvantage someone who really needs it but heh, “dog eat dog” and all that, and we should all foster our inner bastard capitalist, regardless, and that kind of thing. Do it Chris, if it makes you feel good.
Heh, joe2, I like your style.
joe2 @ 245 said:
Really? It appears you said:
oops, sorry about the stuffed up quoting above…
joe2 @ 254 – apologies I realise now I misunderstood you – I thought by assessment exam you meant the exam the assessors take. The house assessment is not really an *exam*.
It does mean that the assessor needs to know more about the basics if they are going to be able to make and understand good recommendations for houses which already have the basics done (something else people have been complaining about the scheme – eg recommending improving water use at a suburban house which is efficient enough to only run on tank water).
“Heh, joe2, I like your style.”
Thanks adrian. I blame my sponsor.
Now seriously – while I can understand the insulation issue – how on earth is this the Ministers fault? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/18/2822941.htm
Oh, and incidentally, there havent been any ‘solar fires’, not even one – but dont let stop a good story.
Readers should check the comments following the story Lefty E linked to.
By the way good link Lefty E.
This matter is snowballing out of the control of the ALP’s media handlers – when the caucus decides too much damage is occurring Garrett will be dropped.
How much factional support does he have?
Yes, your ABC never fails to disappoint.
If climate change were really happening, I reckon it would be Peter Garrett’s fault because his failed and incompetant emission cutting measures have not proved to stem the tide. And the standard of oz rock music has gone backwards since he has been minister.
And nice pincer movement there, Murph. Why not drop in a mention of Rudd’s
tricky spin doctors who usually always prove so effective in manipulating the media narrative? Tony Abbott hardly ever gets his luvly gob on the tele.
On the other hand, the top of his head should provide elevated albedo so perhaps he is doing his part … ;-0
LeftyE @ 260 – no that subsidy has its origins with the Howard government originally as well as the state governments with various FiTs. But I can understand why the fire service is concerned about there being no easy way to turn off the solar cells like they can do with mains power. And the report stated there had been deaths of firefighters overseas due to being electrocuted by solar power installations.
Which report is that Chris? And do you have any links to reports of actual electrocutions (not shocks) of firefighters overseas from solar power installations?
joe2 @ 266 – Lateline last night interviewing someone from the Australian Firefighters Union. I don’t have any links to actual reports of actual electrocutions.
From what I know it doesn’t seem unreasonable that someone could be electrocuted from them solar cells and a quick google search indicates that at least some firefighters are taking it into account in their training – eg throwing blankets over solar cells etc. The risk isn’t just death by electrocution, but a shock could cause a fall off a roof for example.
btw I’m not suggesting this is a reason not to have domestic solar installations – just may need some extra training/regulation as it becomes a more common risk. And also act as a warning to homeowners who may not be aware there could still be live wires in the roof even if they turn off the power at the fuse box.
Chris
Our newly installed rooftop solar PV has this in the fuse box:
New bright red labels under two of the switches ~
* Normal Supply Main Switch
* Solar Supply Main Switch
Also two large red signs:
! WARNING
Dual Supply
Isolate Both Normal And Solar Supplies Before Working On This Equipment
(all in CAPITAL LETTERS)
****
(We’re in Victoria.)
“I don’t have any links to actual reports of actual electrocutions.”
It might be because none have happened overseas, Chris. Just like there have been no fires in Australia as LeftyE mentions@260.
Another point, worthy of mention, is that solar panel installations in Australia would need to be signed off by sparkies if they were to be hooked up to the grid.
A pretty sound check up, I would have thought.
Ambigulous @ 268 – right, but what does the solar supply main switch actually do? Eg I’m wondering if it just cuts off the power from the solar cells to the street (this is important when they do line work but I thought most systems were smart enough to disconnect themselves automatically)? The solar cells will continue to generate voltage as long as there is sunlight. So unless that switch controls another relay of some kind close to or in your solar panels then there would still be some live wires in your roof.
joe2 @ 269 – take it up with the Australian Firefighters Union if you think they’re lying about the deaths….
“PETER MARSHALL, UNITED FIREFIGHTERS UNION OF AUSTRALIA: Our understanding, very clearly, is that a number of firefighters have lost their lives because of this DC current and, in fact, because the equipment procedures and training were not in place.”
Chris, they are not lying about deaths. Some guys have been shocked- not electrocuted- and thrown off balance, from what I can gather. They do not mention, as you did @265, the death of “firefighters overseas due to being electrocuted by solar power installations”.
Maybe it was just you that made it up.
I asked the sparkie doing ours and he said it was 80V DC, off 6 panels, going into the transformer. I’d hazard a guess that the current at any time would be dependent of how bright the sunshine was.
I gather the street lighting (temporary, put up and down each festival by volunteers, I doubt all or many of whom are sparkies in real life ) at Woodford is 24 V DC so as not to be making slipups fatal. 8OV sounds like a big jump.
Yes there would be live wires between panels and the Solar Supply Main Switch, which is usually located closer to the inverter rather then the panels. In my case they go a fair way through the roof space. However, these cables are ducted in PVC and not just plain insulation wires like the 240VAC lines, which I think is the standard.
It might be good risk management procedure to notified the relevant Fire Dept of any PV installation and provide them with a panel and wiring location plan. Fire fighting foam over the PV panels would instantly shut them down, me thinks.
Chris
If this is of any interest, quite separate from the fuse box, and right beside the inverter is another switch labelled:
Solar Array DC Isolator
On the inverter, is written
Open circuit voltage 266.4 V DC
I don’t have the technical knowledge to interpret this.
Apologies and correction re my posting @274
The “Solar Array DC Isolator” is the isolator switch between the PV panels and Inverter. My labeling is different in the fuse box as per Ambi @268.
While there is sun on the panels, there will be always DC power upto the DC Isolator and if it is closed upto the Inverter. Not sure what the open circuit label refers to, as my panels are wired in parallel and thus 80VDC, or there abouts, are supplied to the Inverter. However, the Inverter should not have any power on its output (240 VAC), if there is no Main power present at the Inverter.
BTW just receive an email from EnergyMatters with and link to a media release from the Clean Energy Council regards PV installation safety concerns voiced on ABC last night.
joe2 @ 272 – I’m not sure why you think its so important here to need to distinguish deaths from electric shock only from electric shock causing a fall which causes death, but yes I agree the firefighters union did not say exactly how the death occurred, just that electric shock was the primary cause. Either way its a safety concern related to solar cells.
Ootz @ 274 – Use of foam does sound sensible, though its reported it didn’t work in one case in Germany – the foam kept slipping off the solar cells and even when covered the cells kept producing power – some solar cells can do pretty well in cloudy conditions so this might be one reason. This is probably a good example of why the government and regulators need to update training and safety standards as technology develops – sometimes what seem like reasonable actions won’t work as well as most would expect.
Open circuit voltage normally refers to the no-load voltage (as you increase the load on a generator the voltage can drop if it can’t meet the power demand).
I also got an email from the company we probably are going to solar cells from assuring me that they only use certified solar panels. btw it is the Clean Energy Council who are lobbying for more audits/inspections – they don’t want dodgy installers tarnishing their industry.
Ambigulous @ 275 – not sure if the voltage that refers to is what is actually applied or just what the inverter is rated to (I’d guess the latter). What DC voltage you have depends on how many solar cells and how they are configured (how many in parallel and how many in series). The higher the voltage, probably the higher the risk of arcing and fire if there is a fault somewhere. But as Ootz mentions things like PVC piping help reduce the risk of faults causing further problems (and harder for people to accidentally cut wires).
“joe2 @ 272 – I’m not sure why you think its so important here to need to distinguish deaths from electric shock only from electric shock causing a fall which causes death,…”
Because, Chris, there is a lot of mischievous bullshit going down around everything to do with some great schemes that are about cutting back on emissions.
I think your suggestion of “electrocutions” was needless fearmongering in the same basket as the fires, which Lateline concluded, were about to break out in 2000 homes with solar panels.
Though, somewhat less obnoxious than the Hunt and Abbott claims that 1000 homes were surely “electrified” due to foil insulation installations.
joe2 @ 279 – no fear mongering on my part intended. The electrocution risk with solar PV is quite different (and a lot less likely) to that from the insulation problems.
The concern I have with the quality of solar PV installations is long term. They are becoming very popular and its seems commonsense to put extra effort in now to ensure safety standards and regulation/auditing are at appropriate levels (given growth of the installers, change in technology) rather than find out 15 years later when every other house has solar PV that very minor and cheap changes could have made a significant difference but are now very expensive to retrofit.
For example there seem to be legitimate concerns around the quality of some solar panels and dodgy installers taking the risk that they won’t be audited. Its the sort of thing that would be good to very publicly crack down on to discourage others from trying the same thing in the future.
btw as I’ve stated before, I think these schemes are great ideas (insulation, green loans, PV to a lesser extent but for ROI reasons), I just think some of them have been poorly planned and implemented – it may simply be that the environment department doesn’t have the skills and experience to run programs like this.
Seems odd to me that we’re having a great debate over what seems a very small risk (so small we are struggling to establish a single case world wide). I mean I’ve got two LPG cylinders, I reckon they pose a greater risk to the lives of fire fighters in an emergency. Also we a surrounded by tanks of extremely flammable liquid that move about at speed day and night, surely something must be done. Is not Garret responsible?
According to the SMH, Abbott and co have gone quiet on this matter since it was revealed that the programme was established by the Howard government with the same guidelines used when Labor took it over.
I’m sure that none of the ABC reports mentioned this salient fact.
adrian @ 283,
Which just goes to show this particular pack of Liberals are so incompetent they can’t even organise themselves as an Opposition.
Ootz – I’m not a fan of direct action plans (though it doesn’t sound as direct action as the name might suggest – more of a reverse auction) with a couple of exceptions – R&D and areas where the governments have direct responsibility – eg energy efficiency of public housing, some of which is really really bad. In terms of safety we’ve seen what unintended side effects you can get when the government pours a lot money into a single area over a short period of time. And it also produces a conflict of interest – there is pressure not to look too hard at regulation/safety because of a desire for the government program to succeed.
I’d much prefer an ETS system come in, albeit with higher targets and less subsidies to companies and the middle class. And the compensation should in general not be in cash payments to allow people to consume at the same rate as before but instead improvements (eg energy efficiency of housing/appliances) to allow people to effectively do the same thing but consume less energy.
Chris @ 280.
Given that State and Territory work health and safety departments have had the regulatory powers for over thirty years since OH&S was regulated in any real sense in the 70s, it is incomprehensible that anyone else would have a hope in hell of matching that expertise. Impossible.
It is that thirty years of expertise that the States have, that makes suggestions that somehow the Feds (in any department, let alone environment) could have put anything more than an extra layer of bureacracy into the mix simply ludicrous.
People who reckon Garrett could have put better systems in place than those with thirty plus years of experience in the field need to get a grip…or ‘please explain’ clearly what it is they reckon should be done. Not just ‘put in better systems’.
On that basis, those who reckon Garrett should have done more are fighting the collective cognitive dissonance in those millions of us who have attended occupational health and safety courses/briefings/bulletins over that time which hammer the point that it is the State and Territory Governments which are the regulators. Trying to pin it on the Feds just won’t fly with people who have been told otherwise for years and years.
Of course there is the argument that he could have withheld the money. Since he didden, it’s his fault. Well, hang on, would that not also apply to special purpose grants for the States? So any industrial accidents on any job paid for by the Feds is the Feds’ responsibility? I bet that will fly. Not.
I understand why people here would want to hold Garrett and the ALP up to a high standard.
However, I am suspicious when people want to hold individuals up to impossible standards.
I can see why the Libs might like to dress up impossible standards to make them look reasonable, but which any Minister would fail. That is a good opposition tactic.
I do not see why ALP supporters who ought to be smart enough to see through that tactic are actually running with it.
Some frustrated rockers jealous that PG did what they dreamed about, but failed at?
Oh, and those on the left who have just bucketed a minister who has done a huge amount for reducing our carbon footprint by getting this stuff installed fast, have now ensured that future initiatives will be so thought out and mulled over and tested and bureaucratised that they will take years longer to even start than they otherwise would. In fact, I reckon that unless you can guarantee a risk free project, you might just have killed off about half of any large scale carbon reduction initiatives. Good one.
I am sure Andrew Bolt thanks you.
Well said marks. I think that just about covers it.
Thanks Marks @ 286. You speak for me as well.
Thirded.
This factoid about it all being Garrett’s fault has gained so much currency that this ridiculous article manages to fulminate on the problem without even mentioning the word “employer” – although the commenters try to put him straight.
I like it marks @ 286. Fourthed … if that’s a word.
Count me in as fifthed, marks @286.
Peter Garrett needs to stop painting a target on himself, by feeling too much blame for something that was essentially out of his sphere of control.
Rupert Murdoch should stop stirring the pot.
The opposition might be better served in chasing Conroy, who seems to like skating on the one-day ice. Or was that snow-boarding…?
marks @ 286
You’re right – which is why it was important that they both listened to and acted upon the advice of the states who warned them that if the scheme was introduced as it was they would not be able to cope. Perhaps they didn’t believe them, perhaps they just didn’t have the money to fund extra regulation by the states and they thought it was too important to get the money out there fast. That in essence the extra safety risk was worth the reward (both financial and environmental) – they’d be unable able to admit to that publicly though.
Why do I think this is important? I’m pretty ambivalent now about whether Garrett resigns or is sacked – besides who could they replace him with? But there are (hopefully) going to be more programs in the future or other ones continued (like the Green Loans one). I’d really like them to do them better and learn from their mistakes. For example its pretty obvious the department is unable to reliably predict the demand of their programs (that or they are being forced to deliberately underfund them) – I hope they are able to get some outside help in the future.
And I really hope the foil insulation industry is able to survive the crisis they are in now. And that people are not scared away from using their products simply because there was an influx of dodgy installers. Foil is very effective at keeping houses cooler in summer and in some areas more important than bulk insulation.
Latest news from the SMH:
Priceless.
See, marks’ prediction @ 286 has eventuated already.
And this is a bad thing because…?
And this is a bad thing because…?
Garrett has finally decided to axe a scheme that was wide open to rorting and replace it with one with stricter controls. Some might find that action a little belated – especially if there are 1000 operators under the current scheme who won’t qualify for registration under its replacement.
If accepting bad public administration, shonky business practices and avoidable workplace injuries and deaths is obligatory for members of the left, then I’ll happily renounce any claim to be a leftist.
FYATHYRIO.
‘…the states who warned them that if the scheme was introduced as it was they would not be able to cope.’
Chris @ 292 I missed the evidence of this. Can you remind me when this happened?
Oh shit, Gummo’s back: trying to claim kudos for retrospective prophecy.
What are you doing back? I thought you’d “thoroughly refuted” any view which didn’t conform with the one you hold.
GT@295
“If accepting bad public administration, shonky business practices and avoidable workplace injuries and deaths is obligatory for members of the left, then I’ll happily renounce any claim to be a leftist.”
With a whole raft of STATE and TERRITORY Departments whose job it was to police this – why are you directing your ire at PG?
I can accept anger and frustration at the Departments who did not do their job. (And telling PG he should be doing their job is NOT doing their job).
Like I said, PG is being held to impossible standards.
We could hold a meta-discussion about why PG is expected to do something impossible I guess.
I know, the Feds partly fund hospitals – ergo the Fed Minister for Health was responsible for Dr Death in Qld….and the loss of those paper clips.
My “ire” isn’t directed at Peter Garrett – it’s directed at the participants in this thread who have argued in his defence that the poor administration of the scheme and the workplace deaths that resulted from that poor administration are inconsequential compared with the greater goals of the scheme. My “ire” is directed at those who refuse to beleive that their golden-doemd one was the victim of unforseeable circumstances, when it’s quite clear that those circumstances were foreseen. My “ire” is directed at those who have decided, on the basis of tribal loyalty, that Garrett must be defended because his attackers are our political opponents, and no way we’re giving ground to them. Even if we have to rearrange our principles to mount the defence.
None of that means that I’ll be voting Liberal at the next election – but when I vote for the ALP it will be purely out of self-interest, not because I believe that they do governance better than the Libs. That idea is plainly old hat.
Well my ire is directed at those who construct multiple strawmen and puff themselves up in a ball of righteous indignation as a result.
I still don’t think he should resign. One reason is that he got shafted with this SNAFU by his Cabinet collegues.
But, he is so fucked.
I am starting to feel a little sorry for him.
I have nothing but contempt for Fran Kelly. She should be sent packing to the Murdoch press where her complete lack of scruples, brains, memory of the past and her bubblehead interviewing technique will fit in perfectly. She has insulted my intelligence every week day morning long enough that my feelings have descended to animus.
As for Garrett, I still don’t see how he is culpable. Maybe naive but culpable in overseeing OH&S issues – I don’t think so. I did hear on the radio Rudd announce Garrett at a community cabinet meeting and Garrett got a strong round of applause. Also I think its not coincidental that the government polling has recovered to trend this week.
However if it the issue continues into next week politically Rudd may need a circuit breaker. And won’t that puff up the Murdoch press and their undercover operative Fran Kelly once they get their ‘scalp’. You can just imagine the crowing from on high and what the ‘narrative’ will be until the election.
So hopefully Rudd will tough out the issue, Hunt will flop about ineffectually in parliament for a couple of days not landing any blows (he’s got got one or glancing gloves on Garrett at best this far!) and then Monsignor Abbott or Barnaby Bucket will open their mouths and insert foot royally, we’ll be back to the real issue affecting the nation – the Lyndon LaRouche led climate, industrial, and economic polices of the Tories.
It doesn’t matter what causes a demand spike. Demand spikes happen through all kinds of reasons (Easy cheap loans anyone?) it’s still the *employers’ legal responsibility* to provide a safe workplace and *not kill their employees*. If they can’t do so without sending the neighbeour’s nephew up into the roof space, it is *their legal responsibility* to walk away. The logical fallacy is that the employers were bound, gagged and forced to maintain operation of their shonky business.
It’s their moral failure AND legal responsibility.
If the idea were to take hold that industry safety was no longer the responsibility of the employer and instead should result in a ministerial sacking (a favoured outcome for some)every time someone died, to misquote an old dead dude, who would stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
“It doesn’t matter what causes a demand spike.”
Indeed. Like the South Australian State Government and it’s ‘mining boom’. Which if it existed, I would say was being artificially inflated by the allocation of millions of state money in mining exploration grants. Following the logic of some in this thread, if anyone dies in a mining accident it will be the fault of the Minister that signed off on those grants. Nutty.
Tyro Rex @301: “I have nothing but contempt for Fran Kelly. She should be sent packing to the Murdoch press…”
Perhaps she could take the dreadfully weak journo from ABC Stateline WA with her? Worst interviewing technique ever. No probing questions and no insightful background material.
Just offering up opportunities for corporate info-mercials. That’s NOT journalism, that’s advertising.