Friday, February 26, 2010

A different perspective

Some thought-provoking letters related to the failed home insulation scheme from today's Sydney Morning Herald. [26th February, 2010]
Don't overlook the jobs Garrett's scheme created

More than enough has been said about the merits and deficiencies of the government's home insulation scheme. But now that just this one scheme has been stopped, 6000 people are out of a job and wanting assistance. Surely this starkly illustrates how many people would have been unemployed throughout all industries if the government had not introduced its economic stimulus measures following the global financial crisis.

Allan Thomas Lochinvar

Please could the Herald print data quoting industrial deaths and house fires in the roof insulation industry before the government's rebate scheme. Tragic as the recent deaths and house fires are, it is hard to believe there were no accidents in the industry before.

Lorna Denham Cardiff Heights

It broke my heart to see on ABC news the crocodile tears from a small-business owner laying off staff who had been employed for three or four years ''because the home insulation scheme has been scrapped''. The scheme ran for less than a year. Presumably most of those longer term workers were earning their keep before it started.

Some of these small businesses were responsible for at least a quarter of home insulations having serious defects. They paid no heed to building regulations, provided inadequate training for their staff and ignored the health and safety of their workers and customers - happily raking in government subsidies the while.

I hope Kevin Rudd's generous retrenchment offer will not be used by small-business owners to avoid unfair dismissal legislation and get rid of staff they are keen to see the back of. Only reputable companies will be able to resume government subsidised work before a new scheme starts in June. Shonky businesses are more likely to opt for bankruptcy to avoid paying their debts.

Linda Stewart Lane Cove

With the lessons from the St James Ethics Centre becoming an alternative to religious education, perhaps Simon Longstaff would suggest that Jesus's ministerial responsibility for his Department of Disciples meant that Judas's actions required Jesus to resign (''Garrett must accept harsh necessities of our constitution'', February 25).

Peter Oliver Adamstown Heights

No comments: