Peter Garrett is exonerated, nobody cares
What really went wrong in the insulation saga? Veteran ex-bureaucrat Allan Hawke was commissioned to find out, and the Government released his report yesterday as part of its announcement it was killing off the program’s replacement.
Its contents have either been ignored by the media or, in the case of The Australian, entirely misrepresented.
I’ll get to the wonky systemic stuff in the moment, but the first thing to say is that while the report focuses on the systems put in place to implement the program, it makes some quite clear statements about the role of Peter Garrett in his administration of the HIP program.
On the deaths associated with the program (associated by the media, that is), “the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts was briefed on these issues and responses by both Mr Garrett and DEWHA were appropriate and timely.”
On broader risk issues, “when issues arose, DEWHA and the Minister worked quickly to address them. DEWHA engaged with industry, listened to their concerns and briefed the Minister on necessary changes to the program. Warnings were heeded; however, this was largely reactive.”
Hawke also has this to say about the program overall.
Any objective assessment of the HIP will conclude that, despite the safety, quality and compliance concerns, there were solid achievements against the program objectives. At the time the program closed on 19 February 2010, over one million homes had been insulated. Many low income households participated, with the prospect of significant savings on energy bills in years to come. At its peak (in November 2009), the program had registered over 10,000 installers employing thousands of largely low-skilled workers…
and
It may be a peculiar Australian trait to bank or play down good news while examining the entrails of shortcomings in minute detail. Such is the case here, as the success of measures to deal with the global financial crisis risk having some shine taken off them by the so called HIP bungle. Bungle is actually a furphy because the many positive outcomes (already and potentially) flowing from the HIP serve to address long standing problems besetting the industry.
So what went wrong?
Two issues stand out in Hawke’s report. One is that the ceiling insulation “industry” had a lot of problems prior to the Government pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into it. Only South Australia had a proper regulatory framework governing the sector. There was no training available. And there were extensive safety problems. When the Government ordered a check on foil insulation installations in Queensland, 20% of homes had pre-existing electrical problems. Hawke estimates that there were at least 80 fires a year caused by insulation prior to the program beginning.
The other issue is time. When Garrett’s department began rolling the program out, it tried hard to address these problems, but failed, primarily because it didn’t have the time, and not enough resources were deployed within the Department to do it. DEWHA worked with the Construction and Property Services Industry Skills Council to get a training program ready and available before the full rollout of the program on 1 July.
It held regular workshops and consultations with industry, consumer groups and state government representatives on program issues. It set up a register for accessing the program. The states themselves recognised emerging issues and tried to be proactive on OH&S issues in the sector.
The tenor of Hawke’s report is that DEWHA did a lot of things that good program practice says should have been done — it adopted a risk management framework, it procured a proper auditing and compliance process, it consulted widely, but the imperative of spending the money quickly undermined the quality of the program. A full auditing mechanism wasn’t up and running until several months into the program.
Until then, the Department was reliant on a reactive, complaints-based compliance system. Hawke suggests DEWHA should have taken a short-cut on the procurement process (which notoriously take a long time in the Public Service for probity reasons) and got it up-and-running sooner. He says the registration process at the outset was self-regulating — installers simply had to say they met the appropriate training requirements, with no checking of their bona fides until several months in.
Another important point is that DEWHA failed to anticipate the high levels of demand. This is critical and should be one of the longer-term lessons for any politician who thinks pumping money into renewable energy or energy efficiency programs is going to achieve magical results.
Hawke says there were some issues that could not have been anticipated, but that demand far exceeded what DEWHA estimated, partly as a result of measures put in place to actually encourage demand. One of the risks identified in the risk management process early on was that there would not be enough demand for the program, and that it needed to be communicated effectively to prevent this.
With hindsight, this “risk” looks nonsensical, but the Department didn’t anticipate new industry entrants cold-calling householders, or door-knocking, with the intent of accessing Government funds.
Hawke doesn’t say this but you get the sense that the Department should have considered the strong possibility that the industry contained, or would attract, rogue elements. For example, more than a quarter of installers were still using metal fasteners after they had been banned by Garrett.
Hawke also notes that, given the program was designed to ensure householders weren’t left out-of-pocket, it meant householders didn’t really care what was going on up in their ceilings, because they had no money at stake. The most basic verification mechanism of all — the buyer making sure they got what they were paying for — didn’t work.
Many of these problems could have been addressed if DEWHA was given more time, but it didn’t have it. In fact that was the entire point of the program: to provide immediate economic stimulus, involving unskilled labour. But given the pre-existing poor state of the ceiling insulation industry, the HIP ended up being the only stimulus measure without an existing “delivery pathway”.
Responsibility for this rests with the DEWHA leadership, which Hawke says only belatedly swung more resources, and more executive oversight, onto the program. Hawke also gives a backhander to his former Department of Transport whizkid (now Transport Secretary and Coordinator General) Mike Mrdak, saying “given the reach of the program into so many Australian homes, it demanded much more and continuous attention from the Office of the Coordinator-General than it received.”
Ultimately, though it was the Government, with its insistence that the program be rolled out immediately at all costs, that bears responsibility, but given there would have been no program without that urgent need for stimulus, it begs the question of how, exactly, it might have proceeded differently.
Hawke suggests that some form of compliance toolkit for programs be developed, that would allow Departments without much experience in program implementation, like DEWHA, to rapidly establish compliance systems. One of Terry Moran’s recent APS reform proposals is the development of a whole program implementation toolkit for just such purposes.
This report and Rod Tiffen’s brilliant dissection of the media coverage of the insulation issue have shown how facile the “analysis” provided by journalists, including most of the Press Gallery, has been of this story, and most particularly the role of Peter Garrett, allegedly the “bungler” responsible for four deaths.
Then again, journalists have already moved on to bewailing the fate of the industry affected by the closure of a program the media criticised so heavily.
perhaps - where available, the government should rely on market mechanisms for these sort of programs.
An example might be a levy or carbon tax on houses that don’t have insulation, and discounts on powerbills for homes that have insulation and lower power usage.
Dr Hawke’s report is certainly something Sir Humphrey would be proud of! You can tell it was written by an ex-public servant. It finds that whilst there were major problems there is no-one that could be held accountable.
All those problems and no-one was at fault?! Maybe he should have recommended pay rises to all those public servants involved so as to say ‘thankyou’ and to recompense them for all the hardship they have endured over the last hew months.
This report is the difference between the public service and private enterprise (I was going to say the ‘real world’ but I guess your ‘real world’ is where you find it). In private enterprise, the head (whether the CEO or the Manager ‘responsible’) will always have to front up and take the blame as it was the ‘responsibility’. ‘Responsibility’ - now there’s a word that is yet to make its way into use by the Public Service.
This report confirms my opinion that Garrett should be sacked if only because he completed bungled his only mission - this was to appoint someone who would be responsible for the program. Why was no-one ever responsible for this program. It ran for months and spent untold hundreds of millions of dollars yet apparently there was no-one responsible for it - not Garrett or anyone else. Heads should roll merely because no-one was appointed to have responsibility. What an unmitigated disaster and a cruel joke - ie both the program and this white-washing report.
Janus may I suggest you read the ‘entire’ report again, this time trying to digest all of its contents, not just the parts that suit your obvious, intended attack on Garrett, which is what I suspect you intended to do regardless of what is in Dr Hawke’s findings.
Let me point out just one part….
“Many of these problems could have been addressed if DEWHA was given more time, but it didn’t have it. In fact that was the entire point of the program: to provide immediate economic stimulus, involving unskilled labour. But given the pre-existing poor state of the ceiling insulation industry, the HIP ended up being the only stimulus measure without an existing “delivery pathway”.
Responsibility for this rests with the DEWHA leadership, which Hawke says only belatedly swung more resources, and more executive oversight, onto the program. Hawke also gives a backhander to his former Department of Transport whizkid (now Transport Secretary and Coordinator General) Mike Mrdak, saying “given the reach of the program into so many Australian homes, it demanded much more and continuous attention from the Office of the Coordinator-General than it received.”
Your demands for the head of Mr Garrett put you in the same basket as that shrill, whinging opposition spokesperson, who has been bleating from day one. He and his parties intent on blaming Garrett for the deaths of 4 workers is despicable.
“the ceiling insulation “industry” had a lot of problems prior to the Government pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into it. Only South Australia had a proper regulatory framework governing the sector. There was no training available.” BING!
“Hawke also notes that, given the program was designed to ensure householders weren’t left out-of-pocket, it meant householders didn’t really care what was going on up in their ceilings, because they had no money at stake. The most basic verification mechanism of all — the buyer making sure they got what they were paying for — didn’t work.” BING!
“Ultimately, though it was the Government, with its insistence that the program be rolled out immediately at all costs, that bears responsibility” BING!
The financial and implementation naivety of the architects of this program is simply stunning. In the process of obtaining quotes, I got to see who was actually installing the stuff (non-English speaking young people) I decided that I would engage Bradford Insulation for supply and installation, regardless of how much extra I might have to pay (which was zero as the quote was just under the then applicable $1,200 rebate).
You throw buckets of federal money at the great unwashed and you are bound to end up with a systemic scam, one way or another.
Regardless of the report’s findings, Garrett was the responsible Minister and so he cops the flack. That’s as it should be.
Oh yes Janus, private enterprise always puts up its hand when there is a bungle. So come on, name one and then name one you know didn’t put up its hand.
So, it’s entirely possible, that Garrett wasn’t guilty, as so publicly charged by Abbott - whilst shielding “Cousin Jethro” - of “industrial manslaughter”?
“Warnings were heeded; however, this was largely reactive.”
That Garrett did not respond to warnings has not been the issue and that has properly described by the media.
The issue has been the appropriateness of the response and the blind insistence on rushing this thru’ despite many clear warnings to the contrary from many different experts.
BK is just defending the indefensible yet again.
25% of installations are now reckoned to be faulty.
Garrett was unable to properly resist the madcap idea of his frequently insane leader.
He should have resigned. Like so many of the left, he has no shame
Let me get this straight. There were two things wrong, were there?
1. “Only South Australia had a proper regulatory framework governing the sector”, and
2. “Not enough resources were deployed within the Department to do it.”
So the solution to the insulation problems was more Government regulation and more money for federal bureaucrats.
Well, I’m not so sure, but props to Bernard for putting it foward. He certainly knows exactly the sort of thinking that will get ‘head nods’ from the average Crikey reader.
Where are you Venise? Where are you Marilyn? Your order is served…
I care. I care that he was exonerated. I care that the doctrine of ministerial accountability has been so willfully trashed. I care about moral hazard and that the next minister may well not put every fibre of his/her being into representing us/protecting us/giving us value for money. Even if Peter Garrett did everything humanly possibly to prevent what happened the scale of the disaster is enough reason for him to go.
That he didn’t is clear from the report. One can’t help but wonder if a sufficiently energized minister, operating under an clear doctrine of ministerial responsibility, might have acted with foresight, leadership and even inspiration to nip these problems in the bud.
I think the facileness lies with Bernhard Keane and what seems like a strange Crikey campaign to exonerate Garrett. You have to ask: Bernard, just what would Garrett have had to not do, before you think he shouldn’t have been exonerated?
Janus 1.47pm. You just read what you want to see. Stick to The Australian for that kind of distortion of facts and truly shoddy reporting. What about the following did you not understand?
“When the Government ordered a check on foil insulation installations in Queensland, 20% of homes had pre-existing electrical problems. Hawke estimates that there were at least 80 fires a year caused by insulation prior to the program beginning.”
As a Brisbane resident I was not surprised by the fact that 3 of the four electrical deaths were in Queensland, home of cowboy builders. The ultimate causative reason lies in the outsourcing/self-regulation of much builders’ activities. The wiring in older houses will be fixed along the side of the ceiling joists/beams but since self-regulation most wiring has just been dumped unanchored on top of the beams. She’ll be right, mate. Obviously a series of problems waiting to happen. Most DIYers would know better (though of course technically are not permitted to do such work themselves.) I suppose political calculation will prevent any prosecutions of all these builders/electricians except perhaps just those that caused problems. No doubt the inspections will reveal more of these horrors but most are pre-existing and have nothing to do with the insulation program.
The paradox is that, as Crikey has reported (then recycled by Fairfax without attribution) the insulation scheme actually improved the safety compared to the pre-existing stats. These inspections will do the same. Alas it will make governments and bureaucrats even less likely to leave things to industry and professional’s legal obligations to do a job according to regulations, or to expect home-owners to ensure the job being done on their own houses is up to scratch. Is it any wonder our lives get more and more regulated, yet without any notable improvement in real safety. “We have seen the enemy and he is us.” Please note Janus and stop trying to shift all responsibility onto government.
@ JOHN
It could have done that, John, but that would have been too slow in terms of an economic stimulus. You can’t guarantee that the private sector would have performed in better in terms of safety either.
@ JANUS
‘… the head (whether the CEO or the Manager ‘responsible’) will always have to front up and take the blame as it was the ‘responsibility’. ‘Responsibility’ - now there’s a word that is yet to make its way into use by the Public Service.’
Such mythmaking! How many CEOs have we heard of in the last few years who’ve had massive pay increases or golden handshakes because they were ‘responsible’ for poor performance?
Janus,
Please enlighten me which of the many private enterprise companies responsible for the instalation of sub-standard/dangereous insulation where “the head (whether the CEO or the Manager ‘responsible’) will always have to front up and take the blame as it was the ‘responsibility’.”
Michael R James @ 2.12pm
I am from Brisbane also and I am well aware of all the ‘cowboys’ in the construction industry - as are you - as is just about anyone else with a pulse. Pity the DEHWA boffins didn’t - even after being told about them on several occasions by the industry itself. Nothing was done to safeguard the program from these operators - that they already knew about.
Everyone esle - I take your point about my ridiculous assertion that in private enterprise they will always take repsonsibility. Clearly this is not the case - but I have seen enough CEOs and managers sacked because of the poor performance of programs that have been their responsibility. I also note the the Govt is fervently seeking out, tracking down and taking actions to ensure private operators take the responsibility for the shooddy work - and so they should. So we will see private operators fined and otherwise penalised but the people who were supposedly ‘responsible’ for the rollout of the whole program and whose shoddy work led to the disaster. I also realise it was not all Garrett’s fault - but he is the Minister and should take responsibility. I realise there was a lot of pressure on him to roll out the program quickly - who was pressuring him and the Dept? Maybe they are to share the blame if the lack of time was a factor.
The facts are the facts and it would seem that when the facts actually come out people still stick to their partisan political view. Common sense has always dictated that the the ranting of the media, and oppoistion (liberal or Labor) are always out of all proportion to the facts. Still some mud will stick, and in some regards it should. Overall however, this whole issue was and is a beat up that if looked at in the cold hard light of day, we might actually learn something from, and has produced many good outcomes. To say the least the industry who should be held 90% responsible for the shonky work and deaths is now at least more regulated then it was and has been forced to address the many systenmic issues it and the State Governments have ignored. The fact that the statatics show that there are no more risks then previously to households other then many more have insulation leaves the critics on shakey ground for any scheme at all would have invariably lead to the same issue. That said it does show that speed of deleivery is set with high risk and Goverments will need to learn from this in the future .
The assertion that this is an election turning issue is so far of the mark it’s luaghable. If the oppoistion thinks that the majority of voters will change their vote over this they are mistaken. Most will only care if it affects them directly and even in those cases they are smart enough to know that it’s the installers who are to blame not the Government (at least in a substancial way). Let’s face it if I book a mechanic to fix my mums breaks and they fail to work killing her, I may feel like I contributed but the fault will lie with the mechanic. It’s an absurd and increasingly insignificant argument.
Finally the pulling of the scheme is as much about widing back the stimulous (which would have happened anyway) as anything else and the carry on about broken promises is simply a turn off to the electorate as they know both sides of politics do it and it’s unreasonable to expect all promises to be kept anyway.
If the coallition want votes they need to start creating positive polices not weather vain politics. Substance wether they like it or not wins elections and no matter how entertaining snipping and negative politics is when push comes to shove it doesn’t work.
Janus private enterprise was responsible for the bungle after all who did the installations, just like they where responsible for cancer caused by asbestos.. It is a lie to suggested that anyone governments and provate enterpise included is above incompetence. However if you accuse the Government of incompetence you must their for accuse installers of immorality simply based on their behaviour. I note the installation industry has been very quiet during this whole ordeal that’s no conicidence… I do apologies to those installers of reputable nature, but you need to stand up and clean up your industry as well.
On the bright side “Windy”, with their record for “ministerial accountability”, bet you’re glad this wasn’t a Howard/Abbott government, what?
is Tony Abbott going to get some spy planes to keep an eye on these shonky roofers?
From a purely Keynesian perspective, the government’s home insulation scheme was not botched. They dug the holes and now they are filling them in, all within the original program’s budget.
Many people seem to forget that this site published the stats for deaths caused by faulty insulation. They were higher before the Garrett scheme. So maybe the scheme actually saved some lives?
How many projects, institutions, agencies etc are funded by the Federal Government? Should Federal ministers take responsibility for all the unfortunate things that happen because their (our) money was used?
I guess this is the problem of doing things; it becomes possible to make mistakes.
It’s the difficulty of the Labor philosophy; the Government pays for more things, which increases the risk that something will go wrong.
Howard’s greatest strength was knowing when to keep his head below the parapet.
Klewso
Why do postings always have to fall along party lines? Why politicize this? Why would you assume I’m a coalition supporter?
Actually I normally come along here for my own Crikey serve alah Peter Phelph’s
“Where are you Venise? Where are you Marilyn? Your order is served…”
I’m not glad either way. In fact Downer’s lack of accountability with the AWB tragedy dwarfs this and probably any other episode in Australian political history. That mob should have been thrown out the moment that was discovered.
I just don’t get why so many Crikey readers seem to be so keen to absolve Garrett of any responsibility (although your own initial assumption now gives me a pretty good clue).
You can’t sack anyone for any stuff up so yes there is a line to be drawn. But where would all you Garrett supporters draw it? 5 billion wasted - 10 deaths - 500 house fires, 3 years before acting on warnings?
He is obviously not exclusively responsible but surely there is a clear line of causation that can be drawn from the Government’s policy (yes in combination with the culpability of elements of the private sector).
All the comments about all the positives to come out of the whole sorry episode - lets not roll it out so fast next time; lets get households to make a co-payment next; lets get the proper regulation in place to stop back-yard operators from coming out of the woodwork; lets not wait months to act on independent reports/industry warnings/deaths … Brilliant!
Have we now so little respect for our politicians that we can’t expect this to be foreseen? Or perhaps it is the result of blind partisans/journos that foster this lack of accountability on their own side - so it is clearly all your fault Klewso!
OR “It may be a peculiar Australian trait to” always blame the government.
What sort of a miserable whinging conniving nation have we become?
Where is the sense of justice and fair play and individual responsibility?
Did Garrett climb into the roofspace and place insulation batts over wiring etc?
Did he put young lads up there in 50 degree heat and make them stay until they collapsed and died?
Ddid he give them metal stapler guns and tell them to go for it?
No.
What about charging these criminals who saw an opportunity to rip off Australian taxpayers when their Government in an effort to make a positive action on the environment and provide employment in a global economic crisis.
What sort of people are these harbouring in our midst who believe this is afair cop?
I don’t think that anyone will ever forget the pulp mill sell out on the environment. Peter Garret has a long way to go to restablish his creditentials in the environmental space after his decision in relation to that.
Liberals in this instance are calling for more regulation. They philosophically, usually, seek LESS government regulation and more room for individual entrepreneural activity.
But on this issue: the system “failed” because of a lack of regulation and government intervention, we are told. Hmm.
Who is to blame for the four deaths? The bosses who sent the four people into a situation without adeaquate training. The bosses who were cutting corners to make more profits. The bosses who were using a good govt idea to maximise their personal profits. The bosses who had no regard for occupational health and safety of their employees.
But Liberals don’t blame bosses do they. They blame Peter Garrett.
@Jim Reiher
It’s not necessary to be a member of The Liberal Party to call for Garrett’s resignation.
Common sense is more than sufficient.
But this is precisely why it is so important to have ministerial accountability. What they do is important, really important and with ongoing flow-on effects *. It is ridiculous to charge Garrett with industrial manslaughter or whatever Abbott brain-farted - there was clearly no intent to hurt - just sheer incompetence in rolling out a program. Such incompetence leads to an environment in which reprehensible bosses (and who should be charged under workplace laws) send young men into dangerous situations. Is anyone seriously suggesting that this couldn’t have been foreseen? That when you are pushing that much money out the door that fast, accompanying regulation must be in place to keep the shysters at bay. Is anyone naive enough to believe in the upstanding work practices of all Australians? Well I sure as hell don’t expect my representative to be which is why he should have resigned.
Again, this is not a liberal / labor thing - it is about basic bloody competence and how it needs to be promoted by insisting on ministerial accountability. Otherwise this will just be endlessly repeated.
*Here’s an even bigger flow-on for you - how many extra-people died as a result of Downer’s incompetence re AWB?
@WINDCHANGE at 3:47 pm by saying: “But where would all you Garrett supporters draw it? 5 billion wasted - 10 deaths - 500 house fires, 3 years before acting on warnings?” you are again completely missing the point and have simply (simplistically) accepted the nonsense printed by The Australian.
NONE of the deaths or fires have been definitively linked to Peter Garrett or the new scheme. Sure putting in the insulation maybe allowed it to happen but if the wiring was already faulty….. And I doubt that a full legal enquiry would show that. Not that I think the feds should be completely blameless (but in that case as BK reports Hawke says the urgent rollout insisted on by more senior ministers is the main culprit) but this stuff is regulated by the states. Do you really want Federal and State and Council regulatory bodies for the same thing? In these neo-liberal days of market-rule it is no longer ok to have government inspectors check things like building quality etc. It is all outsourced to either private for-profit entities or indeed to the wondrous “free lunch” of self-regulation.
Also I remember when those halogen downlights became popular — in the late 70s early 80s, and I said to anyone installing them that they were especially dumb. You only have to put your hand anywhere near one, not even making contact to realize two things: (1) they are incredibly inefficient (2) they are a fire hazard. But fashion always wins out and the entire world is infested with them. As I said, “we have found the enemy and he is us”.
The problem was that the urgency to get stimulus money spent precluded satisfactory oversight of an industry without a monitoring system already in place. Home insulation was an attractive choice as the stimulus measure because it ticked environmental and training boxes that cash handouts didn’t, and it will hopefully have long term benefits for lots of homes, once they are earthed.
In retrospect, allowing the devolution of responsibility to contractors to ensure that their subcontractors were trained was a poor decision.
While the argument that the rate of injuries related to home insulation per installation fell with the programme is intriguing, the rates from the before comparison are almost certainly rubbery.
I was going to get rid of my halogens and convert to my previously hoarded incandescents because I believed what I now to be dishonest advertising….
h/t Michael R James:
http://www.environmentshop.com.au/ProductDetails.asp?PID=2921
In retrospect it’s a pity I failed to fire up all my halogens in addition to my incandescent incandescents during Earth hour.
And also h/t Michael R James
Fancy that! Those right wing loons at The Oz suggesting that Dear Leader’s (via the woefully inadequate Garrett) rushed insane pink batt fiasco may have something to do with inadequacy of installations and installers with subsequent fires and sundry deaths.
The beds were indeed burnin’ but despite Michael R James, I fancy halogens played only small part……..
Andy you make good points. I am interested to observe the silence of the contractors who failed in their responsibilities to ensure the subbies they used were trained and knew what they were doing. While Abbott and Hunt have been firing accusations of manslaughter at Garrett , those whom the Opposition would regard as their traditional friends in business, sit back and say nothing. Allowing a guy who was caught right in the middle to take the disgusting comments from Abbott and his slimy collegues. They haven’t come out of this without a good deal of crap on their faces.
@Michael R James at 4.55
The contortions being used to justify the government’s actions are truly mind-boggling.
Although I haven’t read the Australian article, here is my “simplistic” argument.
The “absolute” Injury/Death/Fire rates before and after the roll-out is utterly irrelevant for assessing the minister’s responsibility.
This will depend on the proportion of houses wired/batted by the good/dodgy installers both before and after the roll-out. In fact it might be expected that given their established business/efficiencies the number of houses installed by the good installers would significantly exceed the number installed by the dodgy ones during the rollout. This would naturally to lead to a lower post roll-out rate even though significant numbers of dodgy wirings/batts/staples would still have been installed. I would also suspect that the initial small sample of the pre-rollout figures may well make comparisons spurious anyway.
Whatever the actual truth - the critical point that speaks to the minister’s accountability is this: did we get, not the maximum, but even just a good bang for our buck - both in terms of safety and efficiency?
The fact that the government is now spending a billion bucks to go-over previous suspicious work kind of suggests that we didn’t, don’t you think? (or otherwise it itself is a very poor bang for a billion).
The fact that several reports warning of the dangers were ignored for long periods as it was rolled out kind of suggests also that we didn’t.
The excuses about blaming the Australian paper/Different State regulations/ Senior figures are all a bit pathetic really. He was the Minister for crissake. He gets considerable power to get around these things. He gets respect/remuneration and is meant to have the character to stand up to bullyboys or offer his own resignation. I’m not going to go on anymore about Peter Garrett. I feel sorry for the guy - he was a victim of the system in many ways since this was a clearly a fiscal stimulus measure more than a safety, green one. It can’t have been an easy job, Hopefully he can make some real green progress and now act without any fear.
But to sound like the proverbial broken record, the question here is ministerial accountability and what it is worth. I think it’s worth a lot as it is a natural safeguard against the occurrences of these chains of events. Clearly many people don’t hold it in the same esteem.
As I said the contortions of Bernard and now yourself to try and justify is a bit mind boggling. That’s why I was genuinely interested in a possible scenario -any one - where the minister should or can be held accountable. Can either of you envisage a scenario in relation to a batt roll-out where a minister can be held accountable? If no such one exists then I’m afraid I having nothing more to add.
No mention of Arbib in that report…
For god sake windchange take your hand off it. Climbing around in roof spaces can be dangerous but so can walking across the road and we don’t close all the roads.
About 23,000 peolple died due to AWB and Downer.
Here’s a few questions for the clever kids: who runs workers compensation boards? Who do you think actually has responsibility for workplace safety regulations? Who isn’t being lynched here? The answer rather spoils the fun, doesn’t it.
Looks as though all the media…even the ABC and Fairfax are all over the perception of Rudd’s gutlessness when it comes to sending the underlings out to deliver the bad news while he goes into hiding.
Not Crikey though…in it’s inimitable Wynette inspired way they “stand by their man”.
Whoops I was wrong, he’s not in hiding.He’s actively Twattering on these very pages. He’s awesome dudes.
You said: “not enough resources were deployed within the Department to do it…”
Then you said: “Ultimately, though it was the Government, with its insistence that the program be rolled out immediately at all costs, that bears responsibility”
I’m confused. How can both be true?
JamesK - am I right to assume that you really don’t think that the bosses who hired the cheap labor, and then sent that cheap labour into the ceilings without adequate training, are not responsible for their deaths? The bosses who were living by the wonderful principles of “make as much profit as you can by cutting as many corners as you can” - even ignoring rules that were set up with the program - somehow these people are not directly responsible for their workers deaths?
Liberal-type folk, believe in free market capitalism; as little government regulation as possible; the rewarding of initiative and individual entrepreneural efforts; making as much profit as possible; and paying out as little as legal (and sometimes not even that) in things like wages, training, safety equipment and the rest. So it is really ironic (and entirely political) that they are calling for more government regulation and greater industry regulations and more “interference” on small business - in this case. It is a rare moment, and it is motivated by one thing and one thing alone: to score points against Labor.
I don’t particularly like either Liberal or Labor and I have no particular reason to want to defend Garrett who constantly disappoints me. So in defending him in this instance, I actually think I am seeing this a little more clearly than people who actually vote for either Liberal or Labor.
I care that Garret is exhonorated. Even the media should have seen the problems lay elsewhere.
As far as the media is concerned, no surprises there that little or no coverage was given to Dr Hawke’s findings; the days of objective reporting seem to be a distant memory in most cases.
As an Australian I am ashamed of the Opposition’s petulant antics. When, when, when will they swallow their resentment at being deprived of their ” rightful place” and GROW UP??
“Peter Garrett is exonerated, nobody cares”.
(Well clearly some do Mr Keane).
I don’t. I fully expected Garrett to be exonerated.
This is not news; it’s history.
Well said Barbara!
The media have had their fun and their patsy to lynch — why should they report what really happened now? Telling the truth now won’t sell papers, and certainly won’t assist the media bosses’ personal agendas.
The fact that people of principle get unnecessarily shredded by the opposition and their media sympathisers doesn’t really matter — hey, but “all’s fair …etc.etc.”
The trouble with the above philosophy is it is the same philosophy of those shonks who decided to make hay while the govt. was busy stimulating the economy. i.e. “Who cares who gets hurt? We’re busy making money, after all, this is a free enterprise system. The lord helps he who helps himself.” = opposition philosophy = media mogul philosophy.
Integrity, fair go and Aussie mateship went out the door some time during the Howard era, and people like Garrett are simply seen as collateral damage.
#
shepherdmarilyn
Posted Friday, 23 April 2010 at 8:49 pm | Permalink
“About 23,000 peolple died due to AWB and Downer.”
How come only 23,000 deaths? I agree with what you said re Garrett? I’ve held the people who sent those young men into the roof cavaties responsible for their deaths. It sickens me how those on Abbott’s ‘side’ are using these deaths for their own ends. They showed by WorstChoices that the Libs didn’t give a damn about worker safety - not one bit? Abbott has said he’ll bring back this horrific policy that treated workers like slaves, and proved the fact, that when workers are in unions and protected and educated by OH&S training, worker injuries and deaths decrease.
When will The Australian ask for the head of those in the Howard govt who were responsible for much of the excesses of the Defence force and the blowout of $48 BILLION? When will they take repsonsibility for the bullying and the sexual assaults that caused suicides of young people in the military etc? What about the deaths of 1.3 million in Iraq? Who knows how many in Afghanistan? Sickening!
Jim Reiher
Posted Friday, 23 April 2010 at 10:25 pm
Well said! Nothing more to add really!
I also agree with Barbara, Pamela and Elan. Jamesk - typical!
Thanks Liz.
Yes consistency. As we all know a Garrett and Ruddmeister watchword.
Rudd has allowed Garrett be the scapegoat.
Whether you like it or not Garrett implemented Rudd and Arbib’s insane instructions.
Unlike them he was the Minister responsible.
If Garrett had respect for our institutions of government or protocol or most especially self-respect then he should resign.
But better to have resigned at the beginning of this insanity in opposition to the Rudd/ Arbib insistence on the insane.
Obviously the likes of the head sick, as in jamesk are happy for Minister Garrett to be the receiver of disgusting false allegations from the Libs while ignoring those in the business community, who duck for any hole they can hide in. Not one spokesperson for the insulation industry who hired these fly by nighter installers have had the guts to stand up and admit they share the responsibility. Those who would descend to the personal character assassination level of Garrett merely reinforce the depths to which the Coalition and their supporters will sink in order to gain a political advantage. It happened throughout the Howard 12 years, with Abbott leading the way and nothing has changed. Fortunately by expressing their shameful opinions supporting Abbott and Hunt on blogs such as these, the majority can see them for what they are.
My sister was telling me about an elderly man in one of those retirement caravan mobile home villages at the Gold Coast.
One company came in and scooped the pool charging the Maximum rate to shove batts into the roof space of 250 mobile homes. Each one took an an hour and charged $1600 per home.
Was it put in properly? who knows/ these old folks can hardly climb up and check unlike my sister who could and did before signing and refused to sign until they had done every room as promised.
SHONKS CHARLATANS and CHEATS. The LIBS want less regulation to help business make a profit.
Bashing the Government is just soooooo John Howard!!!
ROGER - Spot on! They repulse me. They have the morals of an alley cat, and I’m not referring to sexual morals, however?????
I’m no fan of Garrett, but all my life have had an intense dislike of injustice. These weak ants stood by while their parliamentary mates did hideous things in the past(like sending a woman in a wheelchair to absolute poverty and misery in the Philipines - Vivien Salon. when it was known prior to and again later, that she was an Australian citizen? not one person paid for that with their job - Ruddock or Vanstone?)Oh yes, Vanstone was ‘kicked upstairs’ to a cushy job in Italy? Hypocrites all! That’s just one example- there’s heaps more! Ruddock? He refers to traumatized little boys as “it”?
PAMELA - I could believe that too!
These shonky bastards should be charged with contributory manslaughter, not Garrett. I recall Howard saying once, that businesses should be able to function 7 days per week, 24 hours a day? Obviously, no thought need be given to being in a roof space when the temperature is in the 40’s outside(who knows how hot in the roof? 50+)and ordered to do work after only a couple of weeks/days education. Where’s the bastard who’s responsible for the young person who died from heat exhaustion - he was only 16+! That had nothing to do with the type or method of installation, that had to do with a lack of ‘duty of care’? Where’s that so-called employer? Surely the 16 yr old didn’t own the company/business???If we use the criteria of Abbott/Hunt etc, why weren’t the owners of the Beaconsfield mine charged with the death of that miner, who left a wife and family, not to mention his heartbroken parents, siblings and friends? Or those men who’ll probably suffer all their lives from being trapped? Not one bastard has been called to account! Not one! It’s a bosses world! Typical!
AND, if it wasn’t for the training by the Unions concerned, those workmates wouldn’t have had the skills to save their lives. It should be noted, that when there’s a life and death situation in the workplace, not one politician is qualified to save lives. Yet, Howard wanted to close down this essential training by Unions - it was pointed out during this time, that attending the seminars etc was against the WorstChoices Legislation! It should also be noted, that since the setting up of the draconian ABCC, accidents and deaths in the building industry have increased! It was bad enough before! One death is one too many! Go to the CFMEU web site and read about the bloke who faces 6 mnths jail(Court appearance in June) for not turing up when ordered by the ABCC - he has no presumption of innocence, and no right to silence! He refused to discuss the conversation that he had with his workmates that was held off the job, at a barbeque, and not while he was rostered on to work! This ABCC was set up under Howard, and shamefully still in force under Rudd/Gillard! Why haven’t they arrested those shoddy bastards who were greedy and slack? Bloody hypocrites all!
JamesK
Posted Saturday, 24 April 2010 at 11:01 am
Thanks Liz.
For what? You’re so predictable. You conveniently omit to acknowledge the other comments made - you just selectively choose what you want!
Where were you re the accusations and revelations re AWB? Where were you about the horrific behaviours of the ABCC? What would you like to happen in order that this sort of horror doesn’t happen again? And, where do you stand re employers taking responsiblity for the deaths/injuries of workers that they employ? Answer these questions adequately and justly, and you just might show some form of integrity, care and concern for workers? I’m not holding my breath!
Nothing new in this.
Flawed concept + undue haste + naive minister = disaster.
Okay, so onto the next disaster …
As usual Bernard Keane and Crikey were in the vanguard but all commenters here should read Peter van Onselen in today’s (Saturday) Oz: theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/garrett-the-fall-guy-in-rudds-roofing-fiasco/story-e6frg6zo-1225857626035
A few extracts:
“ENVIRONMENT Minister Peter Garrett has become a scapegoat of the Prime Minister and his Assisting Minister for Government Service Delivery, Mark Arbib. They are the two people who should be hauled over the coals for their (mis)handling of the botched home roof insulation scheme.”
“There is no doubt that the roof insulation scheme was problematic. It directly led to at least one of four deaths (the other three being a mixture of poor occupational health and safety practices and an outright violation of the scheme’s standards). But we shouldn’t forget the first death was an electrocution from metal staples used on foil roof insulation. Securing insulation with metal staples is a practice in operation since the 1950s”
So, like Keane, van Onselen has actually read and reported on the Hawke report as it is. This at least the second surprisingly frank article by van Onselen in which he has clearly gone against the usual News Ltd agenda and partisanship. I hope he survives there and brings a revolution from within (one can but hope).
— — — — — — — — — — — -x
I by and large agree. Kevin Rudd and Arbib probably should carry some blame. But also the “debacle” of the scheme is much overhyped — especially by The Australian (and people like Windchange here).
— — — — — — — — — — — -x
JamesK at 6:04 pm:
I may be thick but often I cannot tell exactly what your point is (and I don’t know what “h/t” stands for).
Anyway I really am not sure what your point was about halogen downlights. That link showed what are really just lower power ones — so less power and heat but also less light, but with the trick of focussed more tightly. Not really convinced this would be a big improvement. Unfortunately it will still be awhile before affordable LED substitutes for Halogens are available (but they finally replaced the 6 in my apartment building’s lift — which previously was massive idiocy and turned the smallish lift into a sauna most of the time such that I questioned if it would pass OHS law). And sure we won’t save the world by going to more efficient lights but it is one example amongst dozens in our unsustainable lifestyles of things that are absurdly inefficient use of power.
As I said in my previous post, this blog exposes the gutter dwellers of the Coalition supporters who decry and demean Mr Garrett, another joins them in socratease. Their odour is obvious. The disaster for this country is the non existent Opposition, no policy, a hypocritical pseudo make believe christian as a leader with followers who are scared to oppose his rantings, for fear of the Bishop in Sydney who issues the orders. Jim Jones comes to mind. It appears these pathetic nobodies have no problem with business disowning the shonky workers they employed and failed to oversee. Hence the deafening silence in their defence.