Page 823 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In relation to electrical safety and in relation to occupational health and safety, there have been no complaints from industry or unions representing workers in the industry of poor or dodgy installation practice.
Again, later in the same question time, the minister said:
There were no instances of unsafe practice in the ACT being reported to authorities and to date there have been no instances of unsafe practice reported to the regulatory authorities.
And again, in response to a supplementary question from Ms Bresnan, the minister said:
There have not been any matters brought to the attention of the ACT regulatory authorities about poor installation.
I agree that when you read the transcript, the answer that the minister provided there was not actually responding to the question that was asked, as often is the case in this place, but the context for the question was clearly about house fires as a result of installation of insulation.
I am concerned that the case being put by the Liberal Party is somewhat disingenuous in regard to the use of the words “dodgy” and “poor”. I think it is clear that the debate, both inside the Assembly and outside the Assembly, was primarily about safety, about roof fires and electrification of roof spaces and that the installation of unsafe insulation was what the minister and even I took to mean by “poor” and “dodgy”. I support that notion that ministers and, indeed, all of us, should be as clear as we can in this place and not use language that is confusing or that could be misunderstood. As I said earlier when I quoted Chief Justice Spigelman, honesty and adherence to proper practice are of the utmost importance in a minister’s execution of their duties, but in a public debate where the word “dodgy” is being used, I think there are clearly some issues around the sort of language that is being used.
I think there is a splitting of hairs here about what the minister was referring to that makes the criticisms being raised by Mr Seselja somewhat misleading in themselves. Again, we must ask: do the accusations of “persistently and wilfully misleading” apply here? Again, it goes back to your understanding of the context and what was meant by the words “dodgy” and “poor”. If your understanding is that “dodgy” and “poor” did not relate to safety-related complaints, as the context indicated, then perhaps the case could be made. But if your understanding of the debate sits in context, as I believe it does, then I do not think there is a case to be made. Yes, I agree the minister was persistent in his use of the word “dodgy”, but if he was using it in the way the context indicated then I do not think that a case can be made that he was misleading.
Let us turn to the seven cases where complaints were registered by the Office of Regulatory Services in regard to insulation. It appears that the minister was briefed on these cases prior to attending question time that day, though perhaps not briefed as thoroughly as he might have been. But while the information that was provided by the minister that day was light on detail in regard to the nature of the complaints that were
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video