Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition clearly will not accept the responses of ministers, whether they are given in this chamber or in the other chamber. We have just heard from Senator Abetz the repetition of this quite scurrilous accusation of industrial manslaughter. Let me direct the opposition to somebody who could be considered to be a most impartial commentator on this program and, indeed, on many other government programs—a person who has never been a friend of this government and has often been very critical of governments of all persuasions. I refer to Mr Tony Harris. Tony Harris, for those who do not know—and I am sure most senators would know—is a former senior Commonwealth officer and a past New South Wales Auditor-General. He is a person who has a reputation for sticking it up the government of the day, if I may use that phrase, when he thinks there is a failure in proper government or public service processes. He wrote an article in today’s Australian Financial Review which I urge all senators to read. It will give you some perspective and it may stop people, particularly the Leader of the Opposition and members of the opposition, from running around the country and making these outrageous, malicious and scurrilous allegations and accusations and claiming, for instance, that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts or the Prime Minister are guilty of industrial manslaughter. Mr Harris is an impeccable commentator without any bias in regard to this matter. I quote from his article titled ‘Abbott spurns the facts’:

But Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and coalition environment spokesman Greg Hunt are not worried by lack of evidence. All blame belongs to Environment Minister Peter Garrett, including responsibility for the deaths of four workers killed while installing insulation.

We are learning, in dribs and drabs, that some of these deaths cannot be fairly sheeted home to the commonwealth. But Abbott has no wish to be tainted by facts or courtesy. Of today’s politicians, only Abbott—fast becoming a brazen image of Mark Latham—would question Garrett’s “moral universe” for failing to resign and accuse him of “industrial manslaughter”.

The opposition’s approach has been adopted by the usual frenzied commentators, none of whom has ever administered more than an opinion.

There are a couple of those on radio in Sydney, for a start. The article goes on:

. . . the opposition has succeeded: the electorate is given self-serving accusations in place of considered facts . . .  judgements are prejudicial, especially those as rabid as the opposition’s.

I quote further:

. . . government requirements issued early last year—well before troubles emerged—suggest that the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts dealt with the issues as we would have expected. For example, most applicant householders were required to obtain two independent quotes. Quotes had to name the type of product to be installed, its insulation or “R” value, and itemise material and labour costs as well as an estimate of the area of the residence to be insulated (all of the living areas had to be insulated).

When householders—they were the parties who had contractual relations with installers—were satisfied with the installation, they would sign the form allowing the government to pay.

To obtain payment, installers had to be in the insulation business (or later be a registered supplier). They had to provide details of the product, and they had to certify that it met the minimum R value specified for the region and that it met Australian standards. They also had to certify that their work met relevant building and safety standards. If installers failed to provide reasonable service, householders should not have approved their work If an installer duped a householder, the commonwealth is entitled to (and should) get the taxpayer’s money back.

These guidelines were tightened in July, September, November and December.

The article goes on. As I said, I urge all senators to read it. It goes on, for instance, to refer to the number of deaths that occur every year in industries like construction. The former government introduced Work Choices laws which removed many of the opportunities for union officials to inspect safety standards. The point about this insulation program is that there were strict guidelines in place, and they were improved upon through the program. The opposition should deal with the facts and not prejudicial accusations. (Time expired)