This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Tony Abbott for PM

Jump to new
Macquack said:
Abbott trying to lay the blame on Peter Garrett for the death of the four workers was a very low act.
Click to expand...
:topic
Garrett was warned months ago about the potential dangers. He was too slow to react, and the guidelines were almost non existent. The program also threw thousands of people that have never worked in a construction type role into the building industry. So a bit of thought towards regulating a bit harder would not have gone astray. He then has destroyed a whole industry for the people that have been around for years (and you call Abbotts act low).

You should know that being in the industry you are up for industrial manslaughter even if your workers are to blame. In fact you can't fire workers no matter how stupid their actions are. So blaming Peter imo is spot on the money. He created a dangerous situation without taking advice from those in the know. Also these are the guys that came up with these regulations that hold me accountable. So if they stuff up, you can bet I want their heads on a platter as well. There is also no such thing as personal responsibility in this country if you are an employer . So Garrett should abide by the rules his party has created and enforces on the rest of us.


THE nation's industrial umpire has ruled that a long-term employee who was legitimately sacked for repeated safety breaches must be reinstated and paid compensation because of his poor education and poor job prospects. .
Click to expand...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/bosses-rapped-for-valid-sacking/story-e6frg97x-1225831970896

All this BS of peter can't be in every roof is just that BS. Employers can't be in every roof either and are still blamed. Some thought out planning from Garrett at the beginning, regulating the shonky products that were brought in, and better training should have been expected at the start. No there was a lot to blame Garrett for.
 

There is some truth to what you say, as I earlier said, that the scheme was poorly managed from an economic perspective... BUT the case you refer to only highlights the Personal Responsibility of an employer to apply 'Due Process'.


Without knowing the full details of the case, it seems that the employer didn't have an established 'Due Process' for disciplinary matters, or didn't apply it in this case.

While it's fair to condem the carelessness of the employee, an employer must also ensure he/she is properly versed and trained in the legal aspects of human resource management. Similarly, most of the responsibility should fall back on Rudd for putting a junior minister with no experience in charge of the scheme.

It's akin to telling someone with a car liscense basically how to drive a semi-trailer in 10 min and tell them to jump in and drive it across the country for an urgent delivery. This is a situation many employees have found themselves in with facing the sack if refusing or risking public and their own safety if they obey.

That's the conundrum we face with the conflicts in Industrial Relations policy between Rudd and Abbott atm.
 
moXJO said:
:topic

There is also no such thing as personal responsibility in this country if you are an employer .
Click to expand...

That should have been "unless you are an employer"

Employers take on a fair amount of risk and responsibility.
 

Do you want the Govt. to train all the employees, tell the employers that they can only hire employees with X certification etc. etc. Smacks of VERY BIG Government to me, which is not something employers usually want.

Where were the employers checking that those they hired could actually do the job properly? As usual the free market ****s things up and blames it all on the government. Sure, the government isn't entirely blameless, but it's nowhere near all their fault.
 
It is mostly their fault as they set up a scheme which could be easily rorted and they were advised of this.
 
moXJO said:
That should have been "unless you are an employer"

Employers take on a fair amount of risk and responsibility.
Click to expand...

Aahh that's better.

And yes, especially in an environment of chop and change industrial relations law, employers do face a lot of (extra) risk.

I think the party who will reduce the number of industrial awards and standardise awards and rules across the country and base them more in common law, where there is a history of precedent and hence more predictable, will get a big tick from employers and voters generally.
 
Sidamo said:
Do you want the Govt. to train all the employees, tell the employers that they can only hire employees with X certification etc. etc. Smacks of VERY BIG Government to me, which is not something employers usually want.

.
Click to expand...

That happens in the construction industry now, it's regulated to the hilt. I can't climb up a ladder without a certificate, I can't be onsite without a different certificate. I also need SWMS, ohs systems and so on.
The Batts program was slapped together without assessing the risks, and there was a mad dash for cash from every scammer under the sun to grab a piece of the govt funding. Garrett was warned and was slow to act. They also allowed shoddy material (and material not suited for that purpose imo) to be used.
Bad implmentation of an otherwise decent policy that destroyed those legitimate businesses that had been around for years.



Where were the govt systems at the start to check the roof, or employer in the first place. You’re basically handing over free money with little to no checking. It was open to abuse from the start as every scammer ran to it from different industries.
You would expect government to have a better plan in place for such a large sum of money. Free market didn't f this up lack of regulation and foreword thinking did. Garrett was out of his depth but if you’re going to rubber stamp this crap then you can take the blame when it blows up.

People will grab as much cash by whatever means, when you throw large sums of money around like that. Especially when you don't need much in the way of qualifications. I knew one young bloke pulling 6k a week so the incentive to take shortcuts was there. It's not farken rocket science that it was headed for tears, so you would expect a half decent plan in place first.
 
drsmith said:
It is mostly their fault as they set up a scheme which could be easily rorted and they were advised of this.
Click to expand...

But, you could say the same for the Enron and ponzi disasters in the US. This is miniscule compared to those.

The bottom line is the law can never prevent people who are 'tempted' to do dishonest things, from that temptation.

The Aus tax law for example is an honesty system that could be easily rorted. The ATO takes your tax return on face value. It only audits at random unless an obvious anomoly appears. In tax law you sign a statement that you have made an honest and truthful tax statement.

There is an implied responsibility in common law to do the right thing, to not knowingly cause someone else loss or harm, including resisting temptation to shoplift, because you could, because there were few staff about the shop, to rorting a gov scheme because you thought no one was looking.

Temptation is no justification or excuse for careless or dishonest behaviour.
 
Whiskers said:
The bottom line is the law can never prevent people who are 'tempted' to do dishonest things, from that temptation.
Click to expand...
That though does not mean we should remove all laws or safeguards. Do that and we would regress back to behaving like chimpanzees before too long. If the ALP don't understand that then that's another reason why they are not fit for office.
 

Just LOL!!

Exactly what bit of a government/tax payer funded cash throw away was "free market"? Thats an astounding flip of facts. Just amazing. You are using a perfect example of anti free market.
 
drsmith said:
That though does not mean we should remove all laws or safeguards.
Click to expand...

But what laws were removed? All the 'Common Law' of negligance, fraud etc that I mentioned earlier are still there.

Re safeguards, the merit of the scheme were a bit laxed from an economic perspective, that's more a political issue, as distinct from the existing WH&S laws together with the common law which already covered the safety situation regardless of some basic new rules in the scheme to spell out those requirements.

Do that and we would regress back to behaving like chimpanzees before too long.
Click to expand...

That's a sad endictment of the human race... but I think only a minority that are already criminal by law or nature.

While Abbott has layed on the rhetoric pretty heavily in parliament, I don't believe I've heard any mention that any laws, safety or otherwise were removed in the implementation of the scheme or any new laws are proposed by him... or that he really believes there is a legal case for those injured or killed to prosecute the gov or Rudd and Garrett individually.

There's a big gap between a lot of the rhetoric and reality in politics.
 
Didn't Peter Garrett admit in parliament that he only read the report from the "experts" (leading installers and suppliers) 10 months & 11 days AFTER the pink batt scheme had been rolled out? I am led to believe that in the report that ALL of the things that were in the report came to fruition. Like .... cowboys rorting the system, unqualified people installing leading to electrocution, deadly fibres containing carciogenics from overseas suppiers being used et al, ad infinitum. Hmmmmmmm ? To my mind he IS culpable for the deaths as he IGNORED every single recommendation in the report in his attempt to please his Lord and masters by rolling out this so called "stimulus" package to keep Australia afloat. Oh yeah ... he also IGNORED the Minter Ellison (respected law firm) that gave him a report in April 2009 also outlined that these areas of concern needed to be addressed. Peter Garrett also admitted he only read this report on the 11th of February 2010. GOSH
 
Whiskers said:
But what laws were removed? All the 'Common Law' of negligance, fraud etc that I mentioned earlier are still there.
Click to expand...
You were the one saying the law can never prevent people who are 'tempted' to do dishonest things, from that temptation.

To me either Rudd or Garrett (or both) should resign over this. They are ultimately responsible for the overall outcome of the scheme. That's not the same as saying they should be prosecuted in a court of law.

Whiskers said:
That's a sad endictment of the human race... but I think only a minority that are already criminal by law or nature.
Click to expand...
Sad but true and it has nothing to do with criminality.

Next time you are at a red traffic light and the way is clear, ask youself why you are stopped there and what you would do if there was no penalty attached to that law. Then consider what would happen if everybody else did the same.

Apart from more traffic accidents I suspect there would also be a major explosion in Homo-Chimpanzeeus-Roadrageus.
 
Trembling Hand said:
Exactly what bit of a government/tax payer funded cash throw away was "free market"? Thats an astounding flip of facts. Just amazing. You are using a perfect example of anti free market.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course handing out our cash isn't 'free market' (indeed is there any such thing these days??), but once that decision was made saying "here's what we want done and here's how much we'll subsidise it" and letting the market get on with it is a lot more 'free market' than specifying the training the employees should have, the certifications required, the exact type of batting to use etc. etc. and then trying to legislate for every possible way people can screw it up, which seems to be what some here are advocating.
 

You don't get it. A free market is where demand is matched by supply and those that service that demand evolve as the fittest and most efficient to do so.

Anytime artificial demand is created, as this stupid scheme was, you get waste, corruption, and major inefficiencies (ie dodgy blow ins). The problems of the 'great bat ripoff' had nothing to do with free market because it never originated in the free market.

It was classic anti-free market: with a classic and very predictable result.
 
Agreed. It's his ignoring of the warnings that has so damned him. However, to be fair to him, it may well be that he was under such pressure from Rudd to get the program happening that his choice was to ignore the warnings with the possible consequent problems (which actually did happen) or incur the famous Rudd temper if he didn't get it rolled out fast.
We will never know how much Garrett was just the errand boy here, in fear of his job if he didn't do as instructed.
Some weight is given to this thought in light of him only being demoted and not sacked.



Whiskers said:
That's a sad endictment of the human race... but I think only a minority that are already criminal by law or nature.
Click to expand...
Perhaps so. But it's also basic human nature to follow the leader when one sees another getting away with at best rorting, or at worst criminal behaviour.
Perhaps humans do have some innate moral code but they also hate to see someone getting an advantage over them.

Exactly right.
 


Ummmm no this is taxpayer’s money.
Here’s what we want done
You must have such and such a certificate with so much training.
And you must use such and such batting that complies with AS.
Or you don't get paid or get a start.

And as mentioned before the construction industry already requires specific training, ohs systems the exact material you are allowed to use etc. And that’s the actual free market It's to prevent stuff ups, protect the consumer and provide safety.

God I'd love to see you owner build a house 'sidamo free market style' :




Tony Abbott can run a long way
 
Julia said:
We will never know how much Garrett was just the errand boy here, in fear of his job if he didn't do as instructed.
Some weight is given to this thought in light of him only being demoted and not sacked.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that together with Rudds earlier jumping up and saying the buck stops with him was a clever move to styme the crititism of Garrett and maintain credability within his own party room at the same time.

I suspect if Rudd had let Garrett cop all the flack he would have faced a party room revolt for not standing behind the man he cast the task onto.

It certainly wouldn't have been a good look for a 'leader' to generate loyal supportive followers.
 

I remember his 'we get it' and 'step up to plate' comments outside Parliament to the sacked insulation workers and bankrupted business owners. Just before the Boxer arrived. Shame he could have saved the 'we get it' and 'step up to the plate' lines for the following week when Ag Minister Tony Burke had to withdraw his relaxed BSE mad cow importation policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...