25millions to proove what?

Whoever pays for the job is the client (in this case the Rudd Labor government). The person who undertakes to do the job is the contractor. The contractor employs workers to do the job. Workplace safety is the contractor's responsibility, not the client's. The four deaths resulted from dodgy contractors failing to properly train their workers and provide a safe workplace. The home insulation scheme was a success overall, and only this government of fools would try to blame Labor for what happened on particular work sites.

 

 1508510_236398759870272_792062637_n.jpg

 

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Voltaire: “Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” .
Message 1 of 40
Latest reply
39 REPLIES 39

Re: 25millions to proove what?

  • as the pink batts program hits the front pages again, there’s plenty of finger-pointing at Labor over workplace deaths. Look at the full picture, however, and it’s a very different story.

 

With claims of the Rudd government’s culpability in the deaths of insulation installers under the Housing Insulation Program once again receiving attention, it’s timely to look at how workplace safety has fared under Labor.

 

Since 2007-08, according to data from Safe Work Australia, the incidences of compensated workplace fatalities have fallen by one-third, rapidly accelerating a slow downward trend since the turn of the century.

 

 

The most recent data suggests the number of deaths per 100,000 workers fell below two in 2010-11, although this figure is likely to be adjusted upwards as more data for that year becomes available. Conservatively, that means 100 fewer people died than otherwise would have.

 

The incidence of serious claims has also fallen, from 14.2 per 1000 workers in 2007-08 to 13 in 2009-10. Current data, which will be revised in the future, suggests the figure is below 11 for 2010-11.

 

The fall has partly been driven by a safer construction industry, which in 2010-11 was on-track for a record low incidence of fatalities of below four per 100,000 employees compared to over 10 in 2003-04. As a large employer of over 1,000,000 workers, safety in construction has a major influence on overall workplace fatality rates. The transport sector, which employs around 600,000 people, has also seen significant falls in fatalities: the Rudd government inherited a  rate of 16.9 deaths per 100,000 employees; that was 9.9 in 2009-10 and 8.5 in 2010-11.

 

However, Australia’s least safe industry continues to be agriculture. Agriculture is one of Australia’s smallest major industries in terms of employment, with just over 300,000 workers currently, which means the numbers are more volatile, but agriculture easily accounts for the greatest number of deaths. In 2010-11 there were 60 recorded fatalities in agriculture, compared to 38 in construction. The most common cause of compensated deaths in agriculture (a potentially misleading statistic because compensated fatalities only apply to employees, who are just over half the workforce on farms) are vehicle accidents or being hit by vehicles or other moving objects.

 

How much have government policies contributed to this significant fall in workplace fatalities? Bill Shorten has emphasised workplace safety since he became Workplace Relations Minister. Anthony Albanese has made road transport safety a priority as Infrastructure Minister, although the Safe Rates Tribunal has only started work this year; the main changes in road transport so far have been a significant expansion in the number of rest areas. The downgrading and then abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the primary task of which was harassment of unionists in the construction industry, is also likely to see a greater focus on safety; under the former Howard government, workplaces fatalities in the construction industry spiked when the Building Industry Taskforce, the precursor to the ABCC, was established in 2002.

One way or another, Australian workplaces, on the most recent data, are significantly safer than six years ago, except in agriculture, which remains a stain on our workplace safety record

Message 21 of 40
Latest reply

Re: 25millions to proove what?


@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Punch - the point is that we are spending 25mill simply to try and find out if Rudd knew the deaths would occurr. The other reviews have already resolved that these accidents were OHS workplace accidents that were isolated from the government but Abbott is pressing on trying to find proof that doesn't exist by taking it to a Royal Commission.

 

Yet in comparison, Howard sends troops into Iraq because there was a 'suspicion' that Iraq was holding weapons of mass destruction even though he had no proof. In fact, very quickly it turned out that our intelligence organisations had been told that there were no weapons. Told by who? Yet that information was ignored  Was it, or were people not prepared to take the risk that the information they had was not enough or not reliable enough? and he still sent our troops to risk their lives for nothing. Did he have a choice? Don't we have some kind of agreement whereby when we are called we have to go? I'm sure that I read about that somewhere. Did he really know that it was "for nothing"?

 

On the one hand there is a determined digging to uncover something that isn't there just in an attempt to persecute a former prime minister for something beyond his control. Well, that government did leave us with some pretty unclear negligence and insurance laws.... On the other hand a blind ignorance that sacrificed young Australians so that Howard could still play with the big boys in the US and the UK. Every one of those soldiers chose to join the Defence Force, I don't think conscription has occurred since 1918. They chose that career knowing the risks involved, I am pretty sure that even basic history lessons at school (even with our education levels) teaches kids that people who go to war sometimes die and/or injured.

 

Where is the Royal Commission into the latter?


Is there a need for a Royal Commission into the latter, it has been established who owed the duty of care to our soldiers and who pays their compensation. Our soldiers are direct employees of the government. The "neighbourhood rule" established/es who owes those people compensation.

 

Are you suggesting that we try and get the "big Boys" to pay their compensation, that it is they who owed the Duty of Care? I'm pretty sure that all that would have been outlined in the international agreements that Australia signed re war...


Some people can go their whole lives and never really live for a single minute.
Message 22 of 40
Latest reply

Re: 25millions to proove what?

Told by who?

The weapons inspectors, inc Australian WI.

Message 23 of 40
Latest reply

Re: 25millions to proove what?


@i-need-a-martini wrote:

The new laws are very clear - the duty of care lies with the person/company undertaking the work and health and safety lies wholly with that person/s.

 

BUt that hasn't changed much from how it was before.


We must have different law books.

 

what do the insurance companies say?

 

who's paying for what?

 

where does insurance end and the NDIS start?

 

Insurance claims and WC claims all have caps now. regardless of how much injury occurs or how much rehabilitation or sustainance is required.


Some people can go their whole lives and never really live for a single minute.
Message 24 of 40
Latest reply

Re: 25millions to proove what?


@freakiness wrote:

Told by who?

The weapons inspectors, inc Australian WI.


Could we just say "nah, we're not going"?

 

(I don't know, I'm genuinely asking)

 

Could we just say "nah, the USA are nuts, we're not going"?

 

 


Some people can go their whole lives and never really live for a single minute.
Message 25 of 40
Latest reply

Re: 25millions to proove what?


@freakiness wrote:

Told by who?

The weapons inspectors, inc Australian WI.


don't forget Andrew Wilkie in his former role at the office of national assessments.

Message 26 of 40
Latest reply

Re: 25millions to proove what?


@lakeland27 wrote:

@freakiness wrote:

Told by who?

The weapons inspectors, inc Australian WI.


don't forget Andrew Wilkie in his former role at the office of national assessments.


He was one of the weapons inspectors, yes.

Message 27 of 40
Latest reply

Re: 25millions to proove what?


@my*favourite*poster wrote:

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

The new laws are very clear - the duty of care lies with the person/company undertaking the work and health and safety lies wholly with that person/s.

 

BUt that hasn't changed much from how it was before.


We must have different law books.

 

what do the insurance companies say?

 

who's paying for what?

 

where does insurance end and the NDIS start?

 

Insurance claims and WC claims all have caps now. regardless of how much injury occurs or how much rehabilitation or sustainance is required.


Well if you know what the law is then why are you asking the question?

 

And who mentioned insurance or claims? We are talking about duty of care and workplace health and safety.  And the law is clear on this as I mentioned before. So unless you have some other law in some other act that you care to mention then I am not sure what point you are trying to raise.

Message 28 of 40
Latest reply

Re: 25millions to proove what?


@my*favourite*poster wrote:

@freakiness wrote:

Told by who?

The weapons inspectors, inc Australian WI.


Could we just say "nah, we're not going"?

 

(I don't know, I'm genuinely asking)

 

Could we just say "nah, the USA are nuts, we're not going"?

 

 


someone did that once. he is called gerhard schroeder and was bundeskanzler then. the only good thing he ever did was to say "nein" to bush when asked to join the iraq war.

Message 29 of 40
Latest reply

Re: 25millions to proove what?

if i am an electrician and i don't turn off the power before i start working is it the prime ministers fault?

Message 30 of 40
Latest reply