Should Peter Garret(not the turbo) be held accountable for four deaths?

[Reaper]

So on one hand you're having a whinge about how silly it is some guy can't be sacked for refusing to wear safety goggles - that his boss gets in trouble even though it's his own stupid fault if he gets injured - yet here you are saying Garrett should wear the blame for dodgy installers who don't follow the guidelines and end up killing themselves?

Smells like a double standard to me.

Nope - let me spell it out for you.

The guy was warned repeatedly for failure to wear safety glasses (amongst other safety concerns) and this was acknowledged by the Fair work commission (or whatever they are called now). The presiding commissioner also stated that the termination on those grounds was correct. He continued, because the guy was middle aged and poorly educated then the termination is therefore harsh and the guy should be reinstated and paid $16,000 damages.

In my view, the company did exactly the right thing - identified the risk, warned and counseled the guy who still refused to be safe and was then duly terminated. My argument was with govco who have this ****ed up law that says that company directors can be personally held responsible for workplace health and safety yet are not supported when they take action.

Perfectly consistent and no double standard what so ever.

Reaper

 

[danja]

Nope - let me spell it out for you.

The guy was warned repeatedly for failure to wear safety glasses (amongst other safety concerns) and this was acknowledged by the Fair work commission (or whatever they are called now). The presiding commissioner also stated that the termination on those grounds was correct. He continued, because the guy was middle aged and poorly educated then the termination is therefore harsh and the guy should be reinstated and paid $16,000 damages.

In my view, the company did exactly the right thing - identified the risk, warned and counseled the guy who still refused to be safe and was then duly terminated. My argument was with govco who have this ****ed up law that says that company directors can be personally held responsible for workplace health and safety yet are not supported when they take action.

Perfectly consistent and no double standard what so ever.

Reaper

My understanding is that Garrett put guidelines and regulations in place which, were they observed, would insure that safety standards are up to scratch. The incidents which have been all over the media have been instances where those guidelines have been ignored, and the regulations flouted.

Who chose to cut corners and performed those dodgy installations? Quite simply, the installers, and some have paid with their lives.

The biggest failure I see is not hiring enough regulators to police these dodgy operators. It's a shame some people have died, but at the end of the day they died because they were not qualified to do the work, and were essentially trying to rort the system. My sympathy is quite low.

This stimulus package was put in place with the best of intentions, yet sadly has brought some of the scumbags out of the woodwork - it seems a long stretch to try and blame that on Garrett.

This is nothing more than smear politics - and while I don't blame Abbott at all for having a go (that's his job), people should take it all with a grain of salt. There is a lot of hot air flying around right now.

 

[Reaper]

My understanding is that Garrett put guidelines and regulations in place which, were they observed, would insure that safety standards are up to scratch. The incidents which have been all over the media have been instances where those guidelines have been ignored, and the regulations flouted.

The advice was that the scheme was fatally flawed from the beginning and the department of the Environment was not equipped to administer it and would never be. Yet he continued.

Who chose to cut corners and performed those dodgy installations? Quite simply, the installers, and some have paid with their lives.

The biggest failure I see is not hiring enough regulators to police these dodgy operators. It's a shame some people have died, but at the end of the day they died because they were not qualified to do the work, and were essentially trying to rort the system. My sympathy is quite low.

This stimulus package was put in place with the best of intentions, yet sadly has brought some of the scumbags out of the woodwork - it seems a long stretch to try and blame that on Garrett.

In this particular case, he and his department knew and was warned on several occasions that it was dangerous and serious injury and/or death was likely. Further to that, wide spread rorting and fraud is probable. With that sort of advice would you still proceed with the scheme if you were in charge???

Reaper

 

[danja]

The advice was that the scheme was fatally flawed from the beginning and the department of the Environment was not equipped to administer it and would never be. Yet he continued.

In this particular case, he and his department knew and was warned on several occasions that it was dangerous and serious injury and/or death was likely. Further to that, wide spread rorting and fraud is probable. With that sort of advice would you still proceed with the scheme if you were in charge???

For me it would depend on the context of the advice. If it was proffered by (for example) a lobby group with a vested interest, I would take it with a large grain of salt.

 

[Reaper]

For me it would depend on the context of the advice. If it was proffered by (for example) a lobby group with a vested interest, I would take it with a large grain of salt.

The report in question over the last few days was commissioned by the Department of the Environment to anylize the risks involved with the project. They identified many. Further to this there were any number of warnings from industry and union groups. I'd agree with the lobby group thing but in this case the warnings were virtually unanimous from every side of the political fence (lobby group wise)

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has revealed he was also in the dark about the taxpayer-funded report until February 11, the day Mr Garrett told parliament about its existence, despite it having been handed to the government in April last year, The Australian says.

Sky News

The report from the consulting arm of law firm Minter Ellison gave specific warnings on house fires and property damage by dodgy installers, substandard batts and a department ill-equipped to roll out such a massive program.

It also warned that lax controls could lead to fraud and criminal behaviour, inflated charges and ineligible people accessing the program.

Mr Garrett revealed that about 255,000 homes could have safety and quality problems, including substandard insulation, on top of about 1000 roofs with foil insulation that could be live.

Prime Minister and Peter Garrett didn't see insulation warning | The Australian

ffs - what does he need??? flashing neon signs???

Reaper

 

[minux]

LOL @ Miranda Devine...

The opposition wants his scalp. But Garrett is the government’s human pink batt, insulating Rudd and his cabinet from the heat. For no other reason he’s hanging on.

 

[vp_commo]

The opposition wants his scalp. But Garrett is the government’s human pink batt, insulating Rudd and his cabinet from the heat. For no other reason he’s hanging on.

Actually old Pete seems to be a bit of a force to be reckoned with, I must say I was never a big fan of Garret or politics for that matter but the way old Pete has come out swinging is really somthing.
I guess if you ever seen one of his concerts you would know that the faint hearted need not mess with him.

LOL hilarious really the way things have panned out..

Dan

 

[Julie]

lol just read he got demoted...... WEAK, should've sacked the bastard!

 

[Darren_L]

NO.

If I had paid for a company to fit insulation to my roof and they got injured/killled as a result of their own poor safety standards would I be to blame for their death ?

I think NOT.

No one but the companies themselves are to blame for the deaths. If they haven't provided adequate training for their employees then that's their responsibility, not the governments. As a society we love to shift the blame onto everyone else. It's piss poor. Personally, I'm grateful that the government paid for my insulation.

 

[minux]

NO.

If I had paid for a company to fit insulation to my roof and they got injured/killled as a result of their own poor safety standards would I be to blame for their death ?

I think NOT.

No one but the companies themselves are to blame for the deaths. If they haven't provided adequate training for their employees then that's their responsibility, not the governments. As a society we love to shift the blame onto everyone else. It's piss poor. Personally, I'm grateful that the government paid for my insulation.

Clearly the government thinks different to you, as it has demoted Garrett and ceased the scheme.