The unions were complicit in Garrett’s insulation failure

Macca says:

09:10am | 22/02/10

Two Executives involved in the deaths of two workers on the construction of a Gold Coast Skycraper were jailed and fined hundreds of thousands of dollars (although not for manslaughter).

But Garrett should keep his job right?

And The Unions are representing the workplace rights of the workers?

I don’t think so

Jack Thomas says:

02:09pm | 22/02/10

Ouch, the truth certainly hurts for all those Union misanthropes.

The only thing inappropriate about the industrial deaths is the fact that Garrett (and now possibly Rudd) knew about the dangers and pushed a scheme that made those deaths all the more likely.

The Unions scuttling away here have a hide to claim this is all some Liberal conspiracy.

Quote - “When I have been asked about the issue I have endorsed the statements of those organisations because, as I have explained before, it is the appropriate thing to do”.

What does that mean? Weasel words, or just a neat little blame shift to the ACTU, CFMEU and the CEPU? Either way Peter, you certainly sound like the right stuff for the Union to safe Labor seat treadmill.

So Peter, you happily trot out the party line but now won’t stand by it or be responsible for saying it?

I guess you also applied the same attitude towards the Board at James Hardie. I don’t recall that though.

I also note that you don’t actually dispute one part of the writer’s argument that the Unions have sat on this, but instead gone for the cheap meaningless points, all completely off topic and the sign of a real sniper.

Time to stand up and say the Unions were negligent here, while happily patting Kevin and Peter Garrett on the back and laughing all the way to the bank with their handout cash, they knew it was happening and said nothing.

The unions were either negligent or complicit. Which is it?

While you are so off topic, maybe you could explain why you so happily misuse your position as the representative for a few (and we all know the reality of dwindling union membership) and waffle on about immigration anyway?

What is your knowledge base in this area, when I would have thought your members might prefer you to act in their interests, especially since they pay your wage?

In fact, when exactly does an AWU official’s rant on immigration have any more relevance than the CWA’s.

Scot says:

12:08pm | 22/02/10

Seems like too late for such cries to be made from the left of politics. The Unions have failed these workers as has the the Rudd Labor party failed these workers. If Rudd can declare a bushfire tragedy a holiday then Abbott should also declare a holiday for the failures of the Garrett-Rudd-Tanner pink bat program and the tragic loss of four innocent workers because Tanner did not dot the i’s and cross the t’s?. It will remind us all that Labor, a majority of public vote them in, and the Union vote is a minority and yet they decide who sits on the front bench. They have themselves are to blame for these systemic failures. They show no respect for their workers or the country.

Jane says:

04:07pm | 22/02/10

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/guidelines/docs/ministerial_ethics.pdf

I disagree.  Any Government that takes billions of dollars and throws them into the air for the first takers is grossly negligent.  The shonks were employed by the Federal Government to impelement thier scheme.  Hence the sudden switch to making the home owner responsible for work undertaken.  These clowns have laid the Australian people, via those elected to represent the best interests of said Australian people, open to abuse of OH&S guidleines, and to a whole new level of fraud and unsafe accounting and business practices.  Lives have been lost as a result of that. They have commissioned reports and NOT READ them. They have taken legitimate businesses to bankruptcy and left people in fear in their homes.  How, in all conscience can you support this travesty?

Jack Thomas says:

08:31am | 23/02/10

The Liberal party attack on Peter Garrett included CIA style killing of the four installers, which will soon be uncovered .

The report from Minter Ellison warning of the inevitable deaths is also a Liberal party plant, I reckon if they carbon date the printing they will find it is only a week old.

The Liberal party has also had tens of thousands of undercover Young Libs acting as installers deliberately creating electrical death traps in hundreds of thousands of Aussie homes (each one specially selected so it is a Labor voter too).

All this to “impugn the stimulus package” as Alan so rightly says.

I’m with you Alan, this is all a Liberal stunt.

Jack Thomas says:

08:55am | 23/02/10

No no no WKH.

Weasel words from the Hollowman Rudd will smooth this all over.

The Unions will let those deaths slide if it means they don’t look bad out of it. Let’s them get back to their real job of setting immigration policy. 

Hypocrisy is what the Latte Left is all about.

Luke says:

07:01am | 22/02/10

A vote for Labor is a vote for the union. Watching you on the Contrarians waving your hands about and talking over the top of anyone who says anything you don’t like is enough for me. You sound and look like you belong to a primary school debating team, except you think your funny and clever, NOT.
“I know Scott has a lot of time on his hands since Tony Abbott parachuted Philip Ruddock in over his head to lead the attack on all those nasty refugees invading our shores” yep primary school stuff.

T.Chong says:

07:34am | 22/02/10

Young Liberal Luke , yur the one acting very primary schoolish- “a vote for Labor is a vote for the union”-  Liberal 101.
Focussing on alledged “talking over the top…“seems to very much upset you junior members of the Liberal party. You are obvios. Try to provide some reason next time, rather than just getting teary about non issues.

Bill says:

08:02am | 22/02/10

Paul,

I don’t think Scott is interested in the facts, to me it appears to be more personal than that…

Luke,

A vote for Liberal is a vote for the Business sector, are you just discovering this?

John says:

10:09am | 22/02/10

The opposition also fail to tell you that during their term at the helm they made industry self regulated and they tried to remove unions (the safety watchdog) from the worlplace. This situaton is as much ABBOTTs fault as it is Garretts or anyone elses.

Adam Diver says:

10:18am | 22/02/10

Bill how do you explain the 250 mill for the tv networks. Real blue collar stuff.

Both parties are useless but Labor is by far the worse culprit. Why? Because they are in power.

Len says:

10:46am | 22/02/10

Bill - and isn’t it the business sector who employs people?

Dingo says:

11:09am | 22/02/10

Pathetic response Paul. You have proved Scott’s point that most Union leaders like you are simply looking out for yourselves. Shame on you.

Scott Morrison MP says:

11:20am | 22/02/10

Happy to stand corrected on the AWU’s membership records Paul.

The problem with your “but it’s not my brief’ defence,  is that if you are going to set yourself up as someone who is prepared to comment in the national debate on everything, including subjects well outside your brief, then when you choose not to comment on some things - like Garrett and worker safety - then it looks like what it looks like. 

So I suppose your response of “yeah but he’s a racist’ was a proportionate, intelligent and well considered response. Classy stuff, you should read what I had to say about your Labor colleague John Suillivan using that same, rather lazy, tactic in my last punch piece. 

BTW, while we’re talking about facts,  the Liberal Party abolished Labor’s White Australia Policy.

mechanicalbacon says:

11:44am | 22/02/10

Mr Morrison MP,

Given that you were wrong about the Union movements response to workplace deaths, and wrong about which Union covered insulation workers, and wrong about who was the AWU’s first female member - I’d say it’s probably time to put away the clubs.

But, while we are also talking about who abolished what, its the Labor party that abolished Workchoices - and its leaders like Tony Abbot that want to bring that back.

I suppose, given that you think industrial relations ideology was better in the 1890’s than today, you’d think Workchoices was a great policy and you’d fully support it.

Amicus says:

12:12pm | 22/02/10

Are you happy to stand corrected on the rest of your factual inaccuracies, Mr Morrison?

The deaths of four young Australians is a tragedy, not an opportunity for you to score cheap political points. Australia has workplace safety laws, and somebody will ultimately called to account for at least three of these deaths. But it won’t be the Government - it will be their employers, if they are in fact responsible. There is now a legal process for this to go through.

You really ought to take a leaf out of Malcolm Turnbull’s book - he is quoted as having said that any attempt to make political mileage out of this issue would be distasteful. And it is distasteful. And wrong. Nobody wins out of these deaths.

Equally, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy of you to try and apportion blame to a national union leader who has no coverage of the workers in question. It’s called demarcation - you may have heard of it? It’s quite a big thing in the union movement. It governs the rules around which union leaders can address issues beyond their own membership. It’s not appropriate for the AWU to ‘take a stand’ on this issue, because they are not their members. (You can learn more about this issue in such course as Industrial Relations 101).

And just for your information - it looks very strange when you refer to your own previous articles as some kind of rebuttal. And also you may wish to comport yourself with a little more dignity as should befit a holder of national office - for example, you may at least like to spell check your responses.

Scot says:

12:18pm | 22/02/10

Paul, There would not be Union bashing as you say if the Union actually did some good for the people of Australia. NSW is a great example of what is so sick about the Labor party. Labor federally is now showing it is just as careless and inept. The Japanese are now also very concerned as I am sure China is, about secure supply of material, because Labor laws are taking us back 30 years to the bad old days. Of course China and Japan will have to reduce their risks of supply chain and this will not be to our benefit because of a small minority that will cause trouble. The unions knew about the pink bat issues and did nothing.

Paul Howes says:

12:22pm | 22/02/10

Thanks for the response Scott - I know how busy you must be - so little time, so many refugees.

However Scott you’ve got your facts confused again.

Its true to say that some Liberal Government’s relaxed components of the White Australia Policy: eg. the Holt Government allowed a non-white skilled and wealthy migrants to settle permanently (not to different from your policy).

But in fact it was the Whitlam Government’s amendments to the Immigrant Act in 1973 which actually legally abolished the policy followed by Whitlam’s Racial Discrimination Act in 1975 which sealed its fate.

However it is true to say that Malcolm Fraser did more to ensure non-discrimination in immigration policies, in fact I’ve always admired him for his role in the resettlement of Vietnamese refugees and his leadership on the issues of race generally.

I wonder what Fraser thinks about your attitude on refugees?

Willy K says:

03:52pm | 22/02/10

Paul Howes:  I wonder what Union MEMBERS think about the ALP’s attitude to refugees?

Another example of the Ivory Towered latte left NIMBY’s hijacking the workers and selling them down the river.

90% of Aussies don’t want these illegal immigrants.  You are so out of touch.

Bill says:

04:00pm | 22/02/10

Len,

..and your point is?

Bill says:

04:03pm | 22/02/10

Adam Diver,

I see and so the Labour Party isn’t permitted to assist the business sector because they are a worker’s party?  Are you following your own logic?

The Wife says:

05:12pm | 22/02/10

So the union are taking the moral high ground by not wanting to score cheap political points on the back of these deaths?

Is that because it doesn’t suit?

MiSociety says:

08:37pm | 22/02/10

Since when did sub contracters in the domestic home rennovations industry belong to unions?  Many of the workers employed by these shonky installers are unlikely to even speak English and would have no idea about ‘Unions’ or their rights.  Anyway where is the Dept Fair Trading is all this - didn’t these guys have to be licensed to carry out this work?  Who was signing off on all the ‘grants’ - wasn’t anyone checking anywhere?  Unbelievable.

Long Time Ex ALP Voter and Doubly Ex Union Support says:

01:43am | 23/02/10

Paul.  I find it constantly amazing how you people twist history to suit your agenda.  I am of an age to have met people such as Bob Menzies, demonstrated against Vietnam , booed Whitlam and got into some ferocious arguments with people who spat on returned Viet vets..  The ALP and Unions were dragged screaming every inch of the way to any changes to the White Australia Policy.  Scott is damn right, the Liberal Party was the Party who put in the hard yards.  Whitlam, he of the grand gesture, had no option but to follow on - it would have been political suicide (which he committed anyway) not to have put the final seal on.  He then introduced a different variety of racism to Australia - bloody Multiculturalism.  We then ended up with not only Class Divisions (today defined by the Rich and not rich) but a society devoted to maintaining Ethnic differences.  It is perhaps time you stepped out of the Union cloisters and talked to some of the people decrying MultiCulturalism and unfettered Immigration.  It would obviously come as a great surprise to you that mant of these people are the immigrants who knew Australia back before it became fashionable to view Australia as the “arse end of the world” and the people who created modern Australia as the boils on that arse.  I doubt that you would take that step as it may shake your faith in your ability to earn a substantial living off the back of the Australian worker.

Adam Diver says:

07:10am | 23/02/10

@ Bill,

I never mentioned never helping out the business sector but cutbacks for private equity enterprises that are easily replaced don’t seem completely neccessary in a growing economy which has fought off the GFC. If you looks suss, smells suss and sounds suss it usually is suss.

Adam Diver says:

10:20am | 22/02/10

So you are upset about the liberals not holding labor to account earlier? But you don’t mention anything about the fact its labors issue. I cant believe how petty that is

Dingo says:

12:03pm | 22/02/10

Mountainman, you forgot to blame John Howard.

Macca says:

09:17am | 22/02/10

@T.Chong, I don’t think Scott was pretending to be the real workers friend, but rather illustrating the point that there is an explicitly hypocritical nature to the Union movement in their lack of dissent towards the Rudd government on this issue.

“Had the home insulation initiative been a Coalition Government programme, there would have been union marches from Trades Hall to public rallies in Federation Square.” Would anyone disagree with this statement?

TrueBlue says:

10:00am | 22/02/10

Tuck…get back to work fool. You should be ashamed of yourself, dribbling such labor crap. Have the Hillsong nutjobs gotten themselves into politics?

Andrew says:

07:36am | 22/02/10

The redicuals cost of Union fees payed by employees is for glossy magazines and not much else. How much of these fees go to the Labor Party as donations? How many $$$$$ have the unions donated to Labor? Do you have that figure?

Bill says:

09:26am | 22/02/10

Andrew,

How many elected officials go on to make it to Labour Party ranks continue to ensure you retain your entitlements?  How much of the union fees is spent making sure you recieve your rights as a worker in this country?

Dingo says:

11:32am | 22/02/10

HermanT, that is exactly what the Unions and Labor want you to believe. Once upon a time the unions did represent workers and have achieved a lot for workers rights in the past.

Unfortunately now the unions are run by self serving wannabe politicians who couldn’t care less about workers rights. That’s the point of the article - where is the outrage from the supposed champions of workers rights.

Whilst the unions were running the anti-workchoices advertising campaign using $13 million dollars of workers money, the worst paid people were not on AWA’s they were on union negotiated awards (think nurses, teachers, police etc). 

It’s bad enough that the Labor party has completely forgotten it is supposed to represent the workers, as ALP MPs swan around at exclusive resorts with big business leaders. It’s unforgivable that unions, whose sole purpose for existing is to represent workers are too busy playing politics to look out for the most vulnerable workers.

Troy says:

08:14pm | 22/02/10

Herman I understand your point, and I have no way of changing your perspective. But workchoices (while harsh) was introduced to protect workers jobs. How many big companies have left Australia since Labor won power? How many Australian jobs have now gone to China and India? The fact is if employers can’t afford employees, there won’t be any jobs, and then all those Government funded benefits won’t get paid anyway. Howard failed to sell Workchoices to the Australian public, and they voted him out. I can’t see another Liberal leader making the same mistake for many years. But you may think the Australian workers pay for all those Government benefits but I think you will find it is the Australian Business that employee the workers in the first place and without them you have nothing. While I do agree that there are plenty of unscrupulous employers out there that take advantage of workers’ rights, I also believe there are plenty of employees that take advantage of employers. I voted for Rudd in the last election because I believe he was a conservative and would take all the great things that Howard did for this country, and improve on them, I believed he would be able to mend the issues with Indigenous Australians unlike Howard. I wrongfully believed that Rudd would be able to manage the economy while also control the Unions and maintain Budget Surpluses. I was wrong; this Pink Batt fiasco is just one of many examples of how Rudd has used our money in the most ludicrous way imaginable. The total wastage of tax payer’s money is almost criminal, and the total lack of any sort of management and the free for rorting of our money reprehensible. While Garrett is the fall guy (and he deserves to be) Rudd micro manages every aspect of this Labor Government and he is ultimately responsible for all of this Governments wastage. He will not get my vote in the next election.

Jack Thomas says:

10:28am | 23/02/10

To quote you John, “The governments percveived lack of action on this matter, is only bettered by the oppositions”.

Agreed, the Liberals are at fault for setting up such a woeful scheme, handing the money out to these dodgy operators, not thinking about regulating it, not sending out inspectors, not reading damning reports, etc etc.

I know that’s the responsibility of government to do this, more so when they actually introduce the scheme, but those rich b@stards in the Libs can afford it.

“Four young Australians have been killed” infers some outside forces! These people died by their own hand. No if’s or butts, that’s a fact”

I agree John, next workplace death I’ll be shouting that at the family too. We should make sure this is written into the Labor workplace policy.

“What we have here is the blatant greed and ignorance of some Australians in trying to rip off the fellows”.

Again, you’re completely right, this is just a blip, in no way connected to some silly free cash scheme Rudd has instigated and Garrett overseen. We should de-regulate the industry completely and allow market forces to dictate safety.

So what if Unions have been shown to be useless, bloated and corrupt, just watching this all go on, while run by wanna be political figures just angling for a seat in parliament?

John A Neve says:

02:26pm | 23/02/10

Jack Thomas,

If there is proven government problems with the scheme, the opposition should have been hounding garrett to fix them. No word from the opposition until the last few weeks!! Parliament has two sides and government is only as good as it’s opposition, but sadly our opposition was fighting amongst itself.

My comment on the deaths was correct, you might not like it, but it’s true.

The contractors and their staff did not comply in some case with OH & S regulation or provide a goo standard of work. so yes they were ripping off the fellow Australians.

What has it to do with the unions?  I would suggest few if any of the contractors were union members. State government is the controling and inspecting body, not the union movement.

Sorry Jack, good try

Dingo says:

12:09pm | 22/02/10

Darren, those dodgy companies wouldn’t have been in business if were not for the program. Rudd and Garrett are responsible for the program.

The response from the Unions is sad and disappointing but unfortunately, in their current form, not very surprising.

Scot says:

12:37pm | 22/02/10

Darren, We have more public servants per head of population that most countries on the face of this planet, and they still cannot get it right. They are useless and inept. None of them will get fired as they cannot be, I wonder why this is so? So who is accountable, the idiot that voted them in in the first place.

Evan Findlay says:

01:38pm | 22/02/10

Dingo don’t be so naive. Those dodgy companies have been around long before the insulation program started. They’re the same businesses that cold call at your house stating they can paint your entire house for $800, or we can paint your roof and make it look new for $600. They are simply parasitic and will always be part of the business community.

Ben G says:

02:48pm | 22/02/10

Evan Findlay - Even by your own logic, how is it responsible for the government to give these people money to expand and ply their trade on a greater scale, to essentially give the keys to the money kingdom to the shonkiest dealers?
And ask yourself, if this had happened under Howard, would the unions be so silent on “Safety”? Would you yourself be so quick to give the government and Minister a pass?
And by the way, has anyone checked out Peter Garrett’s ministerial performance on just about every other issue? He’s not exactly the team member you’d be clinging on to, IMO.

Dingo says:

04:12pm | 22/02/10

Evan, that’s the point. Knowing that there are people who would exploit this program is exactly why it should have been implemented with more diligence, even in the absence of the multiple warnings the Rudd Govt received.

When registered roof installers went from approx 250 to 7,000 it was very naive of the Govt not to introduce tighter controls.

John A Neve says:

08:37am | 22/02/10

Fog Badger,

I am no union trooper. But in our current world there is still a need for the union movement.

Fog Badger says:

05:09pm | 22/02/10

Sorry, John. Didn’t mean to include you.

I think the unions have a place. But we seem to be going back in time and that’s bad.

persephone says:

11:21am | 22/02/10

Nah. This one’s going OK without me.

Dingo says:

12:01pm | 22/02/10

DG, false analogies do not exonerate the Environment Minister from responsibility.

The government created an artificial market by making insulation free to households. They were warned by those in the industry, including the unions, many times of the problems that were likely to result, including introducing dodgy operators to the industry.

They chose to ignore these warnings and now 4 people are dead, many have lost their homes and the extent of problems seems to grow daily.

The Minister responsible for the program is responsible for the consequences. He must resign.

Fog Badger says:

05:11pm | 22/02/10

Shouldn’t you demand the tooth, iansand?!

Evan Findlay says:

01:48pm | 22/02/10

Why should he apologise. He’s not the idiot that continued to use metal fasteners after they were banned and the first death was from heat exhaustion. Should Mr Garrett be running around work sites ensuring everyone is adequately hydrated? Your argument is flimsy at best. Why don’t you harass their employers, those that are legally responsible. Insulation has long been responsible for house fires, are these fires also his responsibility?

John A Neve says:

02:03pm | 22/02/10

E,

I cannot speak for Peter Garrett, but I have “no remorse” regarding the deaths or house fires.

I am concerned, that to date non of the installers has been charged with negligence, non of the employers has been charged with failing to maintain O,H & S standards and that the oppostion has not pushed for this action!!!

But then many of the employers are probably from the top end of town, you know, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

“Again the opposition and the media hven’t noticed this lack of remorse” why should they, they don’t care either, this is just a political game.

Scot says:

04:04pm | 22/02/10

T Ching, You know the rules so well (Union man) and get the best out of the company you work for. So what do you contribute to the companies bottom line that gives you all these wonderful benefits. I wonder if you would still be smiling if the unions destroy these companies income and these rich benefits can no longer be afforded to pay for your employment and employees must be fired because they cannot afford to carry these bludgers, that know the rule and do not contribute to the bottom line. This is the case in Canberra with the public servants and the four people that lost their lives and so far 96 houses have been burnt to the ground. Have you checked your roof house recently brother?

Ian F says:

02:11pm | 22/02/10

I seem to recall a former Labor Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell, had some rather widely reported views on this issue.  Morrison is correct that the policy was ended by Harold Holt (and it would be interesting to research Labor’s response at the time).  It is one of the recurrent myths of Australian politics that the ‘White Australia immigration policy’ was abolished by the Whitlam Government.

JR says:

02:48pm | 22/02/10

Where did he say that? I saw in a post reply that he stated a Liberal government ended it, however how is that saying that it was purely a Labor policy?

elhombre says:

07:36am | 23/02/10

Janice, many of us tried to warn the “Kev07” crowd of what to expect. The fact is, however, that the Howard government was old and tired and made a couple of large mistakes. kruddy presented himself as a younger Howard with “new” ideas” and “feelings”. So be it. The wonderful thing is that many of the KEv07 voters now realise they were lied to and it is looking extremely likely that they will limit labor to a single term of damage. So don’t feel bad if you voted for this corrupt government, the mistake can be fixed.

MiSociety says:

09:50am | 23/02/10

Right on Janice - Was Garrett singing his ‘Bats are Burning’ number while wearing the T shirt - yeh who’s to say ‘sorry’ now to the families of those that have died in this fiasco, had their homes burnt down or the thousands of others who are now living with the threat that their houses are not safe. 

Why was it not mandatory that the installers be licensed or has the concept of builders holding licenses been scrapped?

No-one can point score away the fact people haved died and homes destroyed while many others live under a roof of terror.

Now how about solar heating?  The same ‘Bob’s’ are out there cleaning up on this one too. 

I was in the building game for many, many years and yes there will always be shonks who will take advantage of those not astute enough to ask questions about licenses, check with previous clients or seek references.  This was a government sponsored scheme - someone had to okay the release of funds.

Another ‘victory’ for self regulation in the building industry.

Louise says:

10:21pm | 22/02/10

spoon fed, are you serious “these unions are probably the ones left in place by the liberals” - what???

“Now the prices will go up again on utilities” - only if the Rudd Govt manages to get the ETS through the senate.

Oh, I thought you were attempting to add something intelligent to the discussion - silly me.

Concerned Steve says:

02:53pm | 22/02/10

And that is the problem.  The wrong government department was involved and apparantly ignored the advice it paid for that they were ill equipped to run the program!  The union should have stamped it out from day 1.  Why was it rushed.

If Liberal was in power would the union have been making more noise.  If the answer is yes - then the issue is and continues to be the union movement is to close to politics, rather than representing members.

Troy says:

08:27pm | 22/02/10

You are right, and the Unions did in fact warn the Government of the dangers. Garrett also had one of his many reports done on this very subject. But he just forgot to read it for 12 months. That is why everyone is calling for his head. But the Union DID WARN the Government when this billion dollar waste was first announced. That is why I find it amazing hypocrisy that they haven’t been protesting this failure of the Government to act. But I guess that has something to do with the millions they have invested in this Labor Government, and they care more about that than a few workers deaths.

T.Chong says:

03:34pm | 22/02/10

Lachlan, notice how quiet the anti unionists are when it comes to pointing out the astounding hypocrasy. ?Their actions speak a lot louder than their words.
Safe bet that any number of these union haters are quite willing to accept what the unions have won for all workers, without paying union fess.
My plan would be: every occupation / profession has an award. If yur union achieves above this , then you get the benefits, if you belong to the union ONLY.
Others can suit themselves , and bargain away to how little they will work for
You belong you benefit, you dont then dont expect the benefits.
That would soon show just how hollow most of these rugged individualists union bashers really are.

Dingo says:

04:27pm | 22/02/10

Yes, there were some great achievements when Unions actually represented workers. People like Paul are not cut from the same Union cloth. Just look as his first response. He couldn’t care less about the workers, it’s all posturing and pollie speak.

Scot says:

10:33pm | 23/02/10

Lachlan, what drivel is this from you and T Chong. Go back to Trade Hall in Sussex Street in Sydney or are you part of the Labor Mafia in Melbourne. Unbelievable rubbish. You both live and dwell on the past. Labor has done nothing for the workers in the past 10 years. They have soaked them of their fees and used them to buy favour in Canberra. NSW Labor is a typical case of ineptitude of the worst kind and the unions members you “represent” in these government departments should hang their heads in shame of what they have done to the “state” of NSW. They have failed the public as the unions have.

John A Neve says:

04:38pm | 22/02/10

Max Power,

Are you sure you have not got unions and political parties confused?

Based on your criteria, parliament should be outlawed!!!!

Get Real! says:

08:38pm | 22/02/10

And the Liberals are paragons of virtue and honesty.

Troy says:

08:38pm | 22/02/10

Good comments Colin, Just when you use your spell check, Labor is not spelt Labour. When you are talking about the Government

Randal says:

08:26am | 23/02/10

No Alan, the Liberal party are calling for the Minister to go because he failed in his Ministerial responsibility to adequately administer a program initiated by his department.

A program that has caused the destruction of primary assets, left literally hundreds of thousands of home owners in fear that their houses will burn down around them, and an industry in crisis as well as four tragic deaths.

By any definition and abject failure by a Minister of a such a magnitude that he must either resign or be sacked, and any failure to do so by the government shows an absolute disregard for their position within the parliament and absolute arrogance and disrespect to the community who elected them.

Dingo says:

02:31pm | 23/02/10

John, if we re-elect the Rudd Govt we will end up owning nothing but the debts we accumulated by them trying to buy votes and it will be in less than a decade.

If you don’t want you kids to be slaves to China don’t vote for this Govt again.

John says:

03:57pm | 23/02/10

Dingo the biggest difference between parties is not the amount of money they spend it is how or who they spend it on. Under Howard means tests were abolished for many but pensioners were struggling to survive. As soon as the libs were ousted they cried out that pensions needed to rise. We fared the global crunch much better than most countries and every economist view I have read contributes this to the governments response. I far prefer to have a debt that my income can cover than being in less debt and not having a job!

Dingo says:

09:58pm | 23/02/10

John, you’re right. The difference is how the money is spent.

The Rudd Govt has spent $42 billion on $900 cheques, school halls and pink bats (a significant portion of which are either ineffective or a fire hazard).

There is no monetary return on this spending, i.e. Australia will not earn anything on these “investments” to service the loan and repay the debt. It’s cost plus cost.

Last financial year we (Australian’s) paid $7 billion in interest to service these loans without actually repaying any debt because Rudd is borrowing more money (mostly from China) to spend.  $7 billion and growing, that could have funded further pension increases (or at least bonus payments).

I too thought Howard didn’t have enough understanding and commitment to addressing Aust social issues. I hoped Rudd could be as fiscally sound but do more for social justice. He isn’t and he can’t. You can’t as a Govt, do much to help people when you’re broke.

John says:

01:03am | 24/02/10

Dingo $42 billion is not a lot of money compared to the debts incurred during the global crisis by other governments. Much of the debt is incurred one way or another, if you do not stimulate the budget is likely to go into deficit due to lower earnings and increased welfare costs.

Is society better off paying people the dole or subsidising their wages? If it makes the person feel better themselves than being on the dole society has won and the extra dollars earnt go around and around and around. It amuses me when I hear people knock the stimulus package while every credible source of economic data applauds the governments actions.

Dingo says:

03:37pm | 24/02/10

John, how our debt compares to other nations should be irrelevant.

However if you really want to keep making that comparison, consider our comparative unemployment rate and net govt surplus when the GFC first arose. Then look at some of the very serious issues now facing several of the highly geared economies in Europe. You might like to start with Greece to see where all of this unfunded spending leads.

The US is a bit different because the US dollar is an international trading currency, so the US has some scope to print money to get out of trouble. The Aussie dollar is a carry currency, which means printing more money would devalue our dollar, drive up inflation and lead us closer to Keating’s banana republic.

The $42 billion for the stimulus package was just an example of the waste. The current level of debt is approx. $60.5 billion and grows by $162 million a day. That’s without any more spending on things like $43 billion for the NBN or anything else the Govt will be throwing money at in the May budget.

Spending money on economic infrastructure (like ports or roads) provides long term jobs and increased productivity. Giving people $900 employs a few part-time retail staff for a month or two. The insulation scheme has provided jobs for 9 months and has now caused more job losses than jobs created, as well as sending some people to the wall.

I think you’ll find the statements from all those credible economic sources have been very selectively quoted. But you don’t have to rely on them. Just look up Aust trade figures during the GFC providing jobs and profits, work out how much extra the average mortgage holder has in their pocket due to the RBA slashing interest rates and the fact none of our banks had significant defaults because of the strength of our banking sector due to the existing regulations.

There may have been some short term benefit of the stimulus, but it pales in comparison to these factors. The debt however will be around for a long time to come.

(sorry it’s such a long reply, I tried to be as succinct as possible)