What do you guys reckon of all this? Do you think Garrett should be responsible? Or at least the government?
Was just reading this story: Monique Pridmore speaks out on roof foil insulation tragedy | News.com.au
I actually thought that this was going to be a story about someone who had the insulation installed and had been killed. Nope. This one is about installers, one of which was killed and his girlfriend was injured... She wasn't "electrocuted" as they say on news.com.au... as she's still very much alive.
Anyway. I can't believe these people are blaming the government because they weren't warned of the dangers. When you staple sheets of thin metal into electrical wires, you kinda could die. I guess it's natural selection at work. Harsh, but true. I'm sick of the government being blamed for every little thing that could have been avoided if people took responsibility for themselves and actually used their brains.
Quote: "There was no safety training, no warning that it could be dangerous, absolutely nothing. We would not have gone up into those ceilings if we had known."
Shouldn't it be the job of the employers to provide a safe working environment and training to their workers (OHS stuff). Stupid people depending on the government to regulate everything on how things are suppose to be done.
I dont think you should get flamed.... I think the installers have a duty of care with what they do, everyone knows electricians use channel in the rhondo to run there cables, even I do, It's neat, tidy and generally out of the way of anything else. They have wooden truss roofs, why not stable to the wood trusses instead of the rhondo ( I'm going off the picture I saw on a current affair or one of the new channels).
I think it's sad that people have died, but I dont think Peter Garret should take the blame, he can't be at every install at once.
Yes, that was obvious to everyone except Garrett, who ignored those warnings and decided to go ahead with the installations anyway - of COURSE he should take some blame for this. He was warned that the foil insulations were prone to be dangerous, he ignored those warnings and approved the foil insulations. It was Garretts call to go ahead with it, so it's his responsibility to deal with the fallout.
He couldn't even be bothered attending an industry meeting to discuss the viability of foil insulation. Fail minister is fail.
Quote from "Garrett":
"My expectation is that my department and experts will provide me with the kind of advice that I need to make additional further decisions if necessary."
... just like he got expert advice before approving the initiative, that told him it was dangerous, and ignored it completely. CEO's are held responsible for the performance of their companies, Managers are held responsible for the performance of their employees, Ministers should be held responsible for the failings of their initiatives.
I think he certainly needs to be held responsible to an extent, but I'm not sure about him getting sacked. I do however think that there needed to be more policing of who was doing what. This story is testament to that. Having said that, people need to take more responsibility for their actions and others employed by them. A big ask, I know.
I can understand the comparison to a CEO, but I think it's far more complex than that.
My main point is that people need to start thinking for themselves and stop blaming the government for everything that happens to them that doesn't have a law/policy attached to it. Generally speaking of course. I'm sick to death of these dead head Australians pointing the finger because they are too retarded to realise simple things and if they applied 2 seconds of logical thought before jumping straight in they might not be dead/injured.
It's like people who jump head first into shallow water and then take legal action because there was no sign telling them that the water was shallow.
My main point is that people need to start thinking for themselves and stop blaming the government for everything that happens to them that doesn't have a law/policy attached to it. Generally speaking of course. I'm sick to death of these dead head Australians pointing the finger because they are too retarded to realise simple things and if they applied 2 seconds of logical thought before jumping straight in they might not be dead/injured.
It's like people who jump head first into shallow water and then take legal action because there was no sign telling them that the water was shallow.
generally speaking, i absolutely agree. i just dont think this is the right example to use to champion that cause. as for calls for his sacking, if enacting policy, against advice, that is directly responsible for killing people, isn't enough for a minister to be sacked, i dont know what is. then again, that would mean rudd would need to act decisively on something instead of prattling on for an hour about it without saying anything.
Quote from grandinferno;378363: I can understand the comparison to a CEO, but I think it's far more complex than that.
Actually, under new work safety laws CEO's and managers are responsible for the safety of their workers. Thus, if a death occurs a CEO can be fined and go to jail... even if they have never dealt with the person or the work area. So why shouldn't a politician on a wage of a small business CEO be put through the same laws if they ignored the warnings in the first place. Sure I agree, foil + eletrical wires is pretty simple, but you have to remember, not everyone sees everything... like some of them have been installing insulation for years, but because they have never installed any conductive insulation they never gave the foil insulation a second thought.
Quote from psyave;378376: Thus, if a death occurs a CEO can be fined and go to jail... even if they have never dealt with the person or the work area. So why shouldn't a politician on a wage of a small business CEO be put through the same laws if they ignored the warnings in the first place.
Absolutely. A CEO is certainly responsible.
But as I said earlier, you can't really compare the two. For starters there are three different levels of government, and if we're going to place blame the state governments are just as responsible. I'm sure laws regarding building safetly, etc fall under state government rule. Either way, the mass of government is not comparable to even Australia's biggest companies.
except in this instance it was garrett who expressly signed off on the program, against specialist advice. not the state government, not the local government, but specifically the federal minister.
garrett instigated the plan (essentially free insulation for people too cheap to pay for it), he got advice, including advice that said it was crap and would hurt people, he went ahead with it anyway, clearly with inadequate safeguards to ensure the work was performed by properly trained and qualified contractors. then, even after the first housefire, and the first death, he allowed it to continue, after the second death, it was allowed to continue, after the 40th housefire, it was allowed to continue, after the third death, it was allowed to continue, after the 80th housefire, it was allowed to continue, it was only halted after the 4th death. the fact that it was halted should very clearly indicate that the scheme was broken and dangerous - exactly what garrett was told by expert advice before implementing the scheme.
Quote from "the australian":
Garrett admitted in parliament this week that he had received 13 warnings from industry groups and state government agencies about the risks of fire and electric shock from poorly installed insulation -- a good six months before he moved to shore up the safety standards.
Am I the only one who thinks the entire scheme is a farce, and if it wasn't so blatantly open to abuse then maybe there wouldn't be such an incentive for doing it on the dodgy?
I've heard stories from several people, about installers coming to their house and offering to do their insulation for (shockingly) "200. Funny that it comes out at that number.
of course it's a farce. 2.5billion up for grabs for insulation installation? every dodgy operator in the country was going to be chasing a piece of pie, but the government just had to be seen to be doing something to 'stimulise' and be 'green' at the same time.
Donno, but I think you can compare the two. A government should be just as accountable for its programs as Petroleum companies are for explosions. A CEO is never going to visit a rig, he just runs figures and tries to shift units. Garrett is just running figures and trying to "upgrade" insulation. Remember a business can be so big that all the CEO does or a board member does is sign off on programs, they will get the same pros and cons about safety and have to weight risk. Garrett has done the same. Now if this had happened in a company, the board would be fined, compensation would be issued, work would stop instantly on that program until safety had been looked at again. So why didn't garret stop?
Maybe he needs to be held accountable but will that ever happen,- but as GI said maybe the installer needs to look at what he is doing and grow a fuckin brain. Me personally as a sparktrician, dont agree with and would not climb into a roof with foil insualtion over all the trusses like ive seen. You never know what some dropkick retard has done underneath that.
If someone cant figure out metal + electricity + connecting the two = electrocution then they deserve it. 90% of people over the age of about 5 are smart enough to figure out not to shove a knife in the power outlet.
Quote from Wrathlon;378405: If someone cant figure out metal + electricity + connecting the two = electrocution then they deserve it. 90% of people over the age of about 5 are smart enough to figure out not to shove a knife in the power outlet.
except it's the homeowners who are gettings the electrocutions now.
Quote: More alarming stories from the federal government's insulation program have emerged ahead of an official inquiry on Wednesday. More insulation complaints emerge
Foil insulation should only be applied directly onto the trusses underneath the roof cladding. It's common up in tropical area's as it reflects heat outwards. Why they were applying it directly to the interior of the ceiling is beyond me, and is not standard practice at all, and really isn't effective at reducing heat.
Additionally, when the government announced the scheme, they allowed these fly by night operators to start up thinking it was good to create jobs, but didn't allow for appropriate regulation in regards to who can do the work.
I don't think he should be charged with the deaths, he's too far removed from it, however, his department bungled it royally and ultimately he is responsible for it. Yes, he should resign over it.
The more this goes on and the more that comes out about the shoddy practises that have occurred, I'm coming around to thinking he at least has to resign from the front bench.
Today I heard that approx 40% of the non foil insulation installed was installed using cheap non Australian Standard batts which will not give the required R rating. That along with letting the foil insulation be used in an improper environment as Kagetsu has said.
Peter Garrett insulation debacle: The victims' three families could sue | News.com.au
Wait. So your kid gets employed by some cowboy, dies on the job, so you're suing the government? Weird. This society is ridiculous. It's like a country of children...
Quote from paladin;378756: turns out he didnt know it was dangerous because he didnt bother reading the report he asked for on it until a year after approving the system.
Yeah ok. He most certainly should be sacked now. What an idiot.