A report by Adam Morton in Saturday's edition of The Age shows Professor David Karoly beginning his appointment to the state's climate change reference group with an admirably plain-spoken stance against the compartmentalised thinking that continues to damage our climate.
Professor Karoly is right to propose that all state government policies be assessed through the lens of climate change, where now they too often dwell in disconnected silos. New road tunnels, a new coal-fired power proposal and poor public transport all sit strangely alongside government advertising campaigns depicting our household emissions as black balloons bubbling from our appliances.
Professor Karoly's influence may yet lead to a greater acknowledgment that large-scale activities have their own massive balloons looming darkly above us.
In Saturday's report, Professor Karoly asks, 'How can you tell people climate change is important and then say "we're going to have this new black-coal-equivalent power station and we're going to put lots of money into it"?'
The question has international relevance to the fight against climate change as China continues to build coal-fired power stations at a rapid rate, and concerned citizens in the UK protest over a proposal to build a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth, near Kent.
What governments, including the Victorian State Government, spin as projects necessary for the development of elusive clean coal technology, climate campaigners correctly see as the encouragement of further exploitation of emissions-intensive fossil fuels. Victoria will, for example, pump $50 million into the proposed new LaTrobe power station on top of $100 million of Federal funds committed last year.
Writing recently on the UK's Kingsnorth proposal, George Monbiot provides a telling analysis of the economics of carbon capture and storage, touted as the magic bullet solution to emissions from coal-fired power proposals such as that slated for the LaTrobe valley.
Returning to other suggested climate measures reported on Saturday, a key proposal put forward by Professor Karoly would see a 5:1 funding ratio to favour public transport over roads.
This is just one example of a large-scale measure to cut emissions that would encourage benefits from widespread personal change. Faster, affordable and more frequent public transport would only encourage us to make our own small, but cumulative savings in emissions by ditching our cars.
Conversely, each small step we take - each crowded train we board - should not be viewed as an isolated and futile contribution in the face of large-scale emissions, but as part of a collective signal to our leaders that we want the kind of broad, sustainable change that would see significant investment in public transport infrastructure.
The first, deserved victim of Professor Karoly's clear-sightedness should be the Eddington road tunnel proposal, which is a traffic and revenue growth strategy that fails to address identified transport needs, but promises to contribute massively to emissions.
Yet Victorian Premier, John Brumby, echoes Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's position on Garnaut in relegating Karoly to the level of mere 'advice' among a throng of competing lobbies vying for influence. What our state and national leaders are getting from the professors is better than that - it's a dose of reality.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Clarifying climate and emissions trading
It is encouraging in the wake of Garnaut's draft report and the Australian government's green paper on emissions trading that some really clear-sighted thought is emerging through the mainstream media and online.
Yesterday, the Australian Conservation Foundation President, Professor Ian Lowe, spoke on ABC Radio National's Lifematters program. 'Carbon Trading 101' was a really clear introduction to emissions trading, in which permits to emit set amounts of greenhouse gases will be issued and traded to achieve an (as-yet-unannounced) Australian emissions target. That target will contribute to the total global emissions reductions necessary to avert dangerous climate change.
Companies that lower their emissions will benefit economically either through buying fewer permits, or by trading their surplus permits on the carbon market. Among other measures - such as generally increasing energy efficiency and investing in public transport - constraining the big emitters within a limited number of permits will help Australia stay within its adopted target.
Of course, we still have a way to go both in setting that target and deciding how permits should best be allocated. On the latter issue, I have found Peter Martin (via Larvatus Prodeo) most persuasive. In the case of the coal industry especially, there should be no free permits or compensation when the need for change has long been evident, but change has been slow in coming for (corporate) fear of its impact on company profits. In pushing for free permits and compensation, what the big emitters are essentially asking is that we all continue to share the negative climate impacts of their emissions while they continue to concentrate wealth in the hands of their shareholders.
On this point, the Australian Workers Union's call today for workers to be given the permits of big emitters that decide to go offshore highlights the need to compensate workers affected by the transition to a greener economy, not their industrial masters. While climate minister Penny Wong has denied that permits could be taken offshore in any case - she says they would be forfeited - the AWU has highlighted the need for appropriate compensation that does not frustrate the essential goal of achieving emissions reductions. That means workers and poorer individuals and families who will face cost increases in the transition to sustainability.
Will our target be equal to the global challenge? Will our emissions trading system maximise our chances of achieving that target? The answers will emerge in the coming months.
What is good to see, however, is that the denialists are wilting. While they continue to populate the comments pages of the Web and even to publish in sections of the mainstream media, their shoddy arguments are increasingly appearing as the self-diagnosis of flawed thinking. Anyone blaming solar activity for warming trends, for example, is really flagging themselves as someone who needs to spend more time in the shade thanks to research reported online by ABC Science (and since confirmed by two follow-up papers by the same researchers).
Only yesterday, Webdiary published an excellent and accessible piece by David Roffey on what is and isn't disputed in climate science. Roffey shows that the overall denialist position is built on the rejection of smaller, indisputable scientific facts - greenhouse gases have a warming effect, their concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere, we are without doubt responsible for their rapid growth, and data incontrovertibly demonstrates that warming is happening.
He also asks why we shouldn't reduce a known significant influence on warming within our control (human greenhouse gas emissions) even though other influences exist or might potentially be discovered.
This is a simple question that is too infrequently asked. Some commenters in blogs have played up the warming influence of water vapour, for example, but have neglected to note that it is a feedback mechanism that amplifies temperature rises caused by greenhouse emissions from human activities. The more we warm the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the more water vapour it carries, and the more heat is trapped in addition to that already trapped by our own relentlessly accumulating and far more more persistent emissions.
Yet, despite the emergence of such simple and persuasive messages, the communications battle is still to be won. Chris Turner highlights problems with traditional environmental campaigning in his recent book, The Geography of Hope. Turner, who spoke at the recent climate debate held as part of the Deakin lectures in Melbourne, thinks we need to adopt the kind of appeal to the emotions that marketing so successfully uses for other products - including those (such as four-wheel drive cars) that have helped create the problem.
While there is certainly a place for short, sharp - even entertaining - messages, they need to be based on more than the shallow appeals we teach our children to critique when they encounter fast-food-promoting clowns. That's where messages like Roffey's and Lowe's and Martin's come in. In their necessary brevity, such messages can act as the tips of icebergs of fuller, though simply expressed, detail. For example, Grist, a (somewhat groovy) US website mentioned by Turner in his book, has a resource on how to talk to climate sceptics.
While there may be an Australian equivalent to this resource, I haven't seen it. Given that our Federal government is set to mount a much-needed information campaign about its emissions trading scheme, why not include a public information campaign that debunks misleading arguments and gives simple reasons about why we need to act - the good oil, so to speak. The Victorian government - with its nifty ads showing the black balloons bubbling from our appliances - could come to the party with new ads showing massively outsized balloons rising from our coal-fired power stations. Don't hold your breath for that one.
Yesterday, the Australian Conservation Foundation President, Professor Ian Lowe, spoke on ABC Radio National's Lifematters program. 'Carbon Trading 101' was a really clear introduction to emissions trading, in which permits to emit set amounts of greenhouse gases will be issued and traded to achieve an (as-yet-unannounced) Australian emissions target. That target will contribute to the total global emissions reductions necessary to avert dangerous climate change.
Companies that lower their emissions will benefit economically either through buying fewer permits, or by trading their surplus permits on the carbon market. Among other measures - such as generally increasing energy efficiency and investing in public transport - constraining the big emitters within a limited number of permits will help Australia stay within its adopted target.
Of course, we still have a way to go both in setting that target and deciding how permits should best be allocated. On the latter issue, I have found Peter Martin (via Larvatus Prodeo) most persuasive. In the case of the coal industry especially, there should be no free permits or compensation when the need for change has long been evident, but change has been slow in coming for (corporate) fear of its impact on company profits. In pushing for free permits and compensation, what the big emitters are essentially asking is that we all continue to share the negative climate impacts of their emissions while they continue to concentrate wealth in the hands of their shareholders.
On this point, the Australian Workers Union's call today for workers to be given the permits of big emitters that decide to go offshore highlights the need to compensate workers affected by the transition to a greener economy, not their industrial masters. While climate minister Penny Wong has denied that permits could be taken offshore in any case - she says they would be forfeited - the AWU has highlighted the need for appropriate compensation that does not frustrate the essential goal of achieving emissions reductions. That means workers and poorer individuals and families who will face cost increases in the transition to sustainability.
Will our target be equal to the global challenge? Will our emissions trading system maximise our chances of achieving that target? The answers will emerge in the coming months.
What is good to see, however, is that the denialists are wilting. While they continue to populate the comments pages of the Web and even to publish in sections of the mainstream media, their shoddy arguments are increasingly appearing as the self-diagnosis of flawed thinking. Anyone blaming solar activity for warming trends, for example, is really flagging themselves as someone who needs to spend more time in the shade thanks to research reported online by ABC Science (and since confirmed by two follow-up papers by the same researchers).
Only yesterday, Webdiary published an excellent and accessible piece by David Roffey on what is and isn't disputed in climate science. Roffey shows that the overall denialist position is built on the rejection of smaller, indisputable scientific facts - greenhouse gases have a warming effect, their concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere, we are without doubt responsible for their rapid growth, and data incontrovertibly demonstrates that warming is happening.
He also asks why we shouldn't reduce a known significant influence on warming within our control (human greenhouse gas emissions) even though other influences exist or might potentially be discovered.
This is a simple question that is too infrequently asked. Some commenters in blogs have played up the warming influence of water vapour, for example, but have neglected to note that it is a feedback mechanism that amplifies temperature rises caused by greenhouse emissions from human activities. The more we warm the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the more water vapour it carries, and the more heat is trapped in addition to that already trapped by our own relentlessly accumulating and far more more persistent emissions.
Yet, despite the emergence of such simple and persuasive messages, the communications battle is still to be won. Chris Turner highlights problems with traditional environmental campaigning in his recent book, The Geography of Hope. Turner, who spoke at the recent climate debate held as part of the Deakin lectures in Melbourne, thinks we need to adopt the kind of appeal to the emotions that marketing so successfully uses for other products - including those (such as four-wheel drive cars) that have helped create the problem.
While there is certainly a place for short, sharp - even entertaining - messages, they need to be based on more than the shallow appeals we teach our children to critique when they encounter fast-food-promoting clowns. That's where messages like Roffey's and Lowe's and Martin's come in. In their necessary brevity, such messages can act as the tips of icebergs of fuller, though simply expressed, detail. For example, Grist, a (somewhat groovy) US website mentioned by Turner in his book, has a resource on how to talk to climate sceptics.
While there may be an Australian equivalent to this resource, I haven't seen it. Given that our Federal government is set to mount a much-needed information campaign about its emissions trading scheme, why not include a public information campaign that debunks misleading arguments and gives simple reasons about why we need to act - the good oil, so to speak. The Victorian government - with its nifty ads showing the black balloons bubbling from our appliances - could come to the party with new ads showing massively outsized balloons rising from our coal-fired power stations. Don't hold your breath for that one.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Emissions trading paper not green enough
Draft details of Australia's emissions trading system were today released by climate change minister, Penny Wong. The cap and trade proposal, in which permits to pollute will be traded within an as-yet-unknown national carbon emissions target, looks set to compensate the heavy polluters, including via free permits, and has excluded deforestation - a significant component of Australia's emissions contribution (around 11 per cent, according to one journalist at Wong's National Press Club appearance today).
The draft proposal also heralds reductions in excise to offset petrol price increases resulting from the inclusion of fuel in emissions trading - a move that appears to be a political counter to the Opposition's panic-mongering, and runs counter to Professor Ross Garnaut's own recommendations.
ABC news online has published key details of the draft emissions proposal in a report that is open for comments. Here's mine:
The draft proposal also heralds reductions in excise to offset petrol price increases resulting from the inclusion of fuel in emissions trading - a move that appears to be a political counter to the Opposition's panic-mongering, and runs counter to Professor Ross Garnaut's own recommendations.
ABC news online has published key details of the draft emissions proposal in a report that is open for comments. Here's mine:
The draft scheme disappoints in its proposed compensation of big emitters, which have had ample opportunity to prepare for Australia's foreseeable and necessary response to climate change. On the basis of your report, it seems we will be asked to continue sharing the impacts of emissions, but not the massive profits of polluters. There should be no free permits, and the revenue from permit auctions should be directed to supporting the transition to a sustainable economy.
Climate considerations have rightly entered the market to change conditions of trade. Big businesses, which to-date have been so accepting of economic casualties in their own interest - such as downsizing and the use of offshore labour, have no right now to be crying for their own protection. It is the Government's role to offer protection not to them, but to the vulnerable in society as we move to a greener Australia that can help lead the world away from dangerous climate change.
In the proposed excise reduction to offset the inclusion of fuel, the government is clearly moving to cushion the political impact of emissions trading. Unfortunately, our atmosphere is indifferent to the polls but relentlessly sensitive to rising concentrations of CO2.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Deakin climate debate at Online Opinion
Online Opinion has today kindly published a piece I wrote following the 14 June Deakin debate contesting the motion that 'climate change is the only issue'. The debate was part of the 2008 Deakin Lectures (full audio) and was also broadcast as an edition of ABC Radio National's The National Interest on Friday 20 June (includes edited audio).
In the piece I essentially agree with the motion, since the science is conclusive and false competition between the issues of climate change and, for example, global poverty cannot be sustained. In fact, climate change action, while a precondition of the survival of the planet, is also demonstrably a social justice project, calling on the world to fairly share global reductions in CO2 emissions and to avoid climate change impacts that will be felt disproportionately by the world's poor.
Speakers for the motion included Don Henry, Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Larissa Brown, Executive Director of the Centre for Sustainability Leadership, and Chris Turner, Canadian writer and author of The Geography of Hope: A Tour of the World We Need.
Speakers against the motion were Austin Williams, Director of the Future Cities Program, Dr Leela Ghandi, Professor of English at the University of Chicago, and Dr Norman Lewis, Chief Strategy Officer of Wireless Grids Corporation (USA).
In the piece I essentially agree with the motion, since the science is conclusive and false competition between the issues of climate change and, for example, global poverty cannot be sustained. In fact, climate change action, while a precondition of the survival of the planet, is also demonstrably a social justice project, calling on the world to fairly share global reductions in CO2 emissions and to avoid climate change impacts that will be felt disproportionately by the world's poor.
Speakers for the motion included Don Henry, Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Larissa Brown, Executive Director of the Centre for Sustainability Leadership, and Chris Turner, Canadian writer and author of The Geography of Hope: A Tour of the World We Need.
Speakers against the motion were Austin Williams, Director of the Future Cities Program, Dr Leela Ghandi, Professor of English at the University of Chicago, and Dr Norman Lewis, Chief Strategy Officer of Wireless Grids Corporation (USA).
Monday, June 23, 2008
OpenAustralia.org will boost transparency
OpenAustralia.org is a new website that will help constituents check just what the politicians are saying in Federal Parliament compared with the media grabs and the virtual and printed spin they send around their electorates.
In my own case, I can attest that at this very moment the so-called Ferguson Report is being eaten by snails in my letterbox. I'd much rather use direct sources made accessible by OpenAustralia.org to scrutinise Ferguson's statements (though some of the media grabs are quite telling in themselves: 'We've got to find another Bass Strait...', The 7.30 Report, 21/02/08. Warm that globe, Martin!).
The site lets you do things like search Hansard, peruse the latest debates, look up your local MP, and even be alerted to new parliamentary speeches by MP or keyword. You can also post comments on the site.
It will be interesting to see how this venture pans out. On its face, I think the idea has strong merit. After all, it's one thing for information to be 'available', but quite another for it to be easily and readily available. That's what Web technology can help to achieve. I say good luck to them!
In my own case, I can attest that at this very moment the so-called Ferguson Report is being eaten by snails in my letterbox. I'd much rather use direct sources made accessible by OpenAustralia.org to scrutinise Ferguson's statements (though some of the media grabs are quite telling in themselves: 'We've got to find another Bass Strait...', The 7.30 Report, 21/02/08. Warm that globe, Martin!).
The site lets you do things like search Hansard, peruse the latest debates, look up your local MP, and even be alerted to new parliamentary speeches by MP or keyword. You can also post comments on the site.
It will be interesting to see how this venture pans out. On its face, I think the idea has strong merit. After all, it's one thing for information to be 'available', but quite another for it to be easily and readily available. That's what Web technology can help to achieve. I say good luck to them!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Update on WorkSafe response
It's been a while since I wrote an update on the Roberts Street issue, so, with the flats now well and truly gone, it's high time I reported the outcome of my attempts to get useful information out of WorkSafe about asbestos inspections during the demolition.
The last time we left our trusty workplace safety watchdog (14 May), I had received a call from Executive Director, John Merritt, and was unusually hopeful of some answers. A bit later that day, I received a call from a senior officer at the local WorkSafe office, whose statements, in my view, raised more questions than they answered. I perhaps somewhat impolitely instructed him over the phone to get back to me with some answers, and fired off another email to Merritt detailing the shortcomings of the response so far.
The following day (15 May) I received a string of bullet points from our safety guardian that...failed to answer the central questions about this issue. Merritt's response varied from that received over the phone a day earlier from the local office regarding the nature of the works undertaken on 2 April and the time inspectors were on-site. It should also be mentioned there were a number of differences between the account by the local office on 14 May and the account it gave on 2 April, the day asbestos removal works began at the Roberts Street Northcote site. Anyhow, I suppose we are to take Merritt's response as the official line.
That being the case, Merritt states in his 15 May email that no external works took place on 2 April, and that the works that did proceed took place inside, in 'confined areas'. These last words were a new addition to the WorkSafe account, and presumably put there to counter the unseemly possibility that 'inside' meant inside the units at Roberts Street that had broken windows or missing window frames and that were therefore potentially open to the extreme wind conditions on the day.
There was no mention in Merritt's email of what was meant by 'confined' and what checks were made to ensure that no work was done inside the units open to the outside.
Merritt also states in the email that the inspectors, in the course of their inspection on 2 April, discussed procedures for removing asbestos in 'adverse weather conditions', and also discussed the 'inclement' conditions themselves. Judge for yourself whether this answers the central question, asked time and time again, as to whether WorkSafe advised or directed that works finish early that day (as two accounts suggest they did) due to the weather conditions - namely, extreme winds that left thousands without power across Melbourne.
What WorkSafe's response really highlights is that they are unwilling to meaningfully answer hard questions where it involves the actions of a government department, and the potential for political embarrassment of a government that has touted exemplary asbestos safety in a major public housing redevelopment. It would be a very bad look indeed if WorkSafe publicly stated that asbestos removal had proceeded on a day when weather conditions argued against it, even if, as WorkSafe has stated, internal removal works under the prevailing conditions were permitted under the asbestos regulations.
A few hard questions and WorkSafe becomes so tangle-footed they're lucky they're not up on a building scaffold. And what does this show about the WorkSafe ads Tim Holding cites when defending the Victorian Labor Government's excessive advertising spend? They're a rather black joke - propaganda about public safety is not the same as accountable and transparent action to protect it.
The last time we left our trusty workplace safety watchdog (14 May), I had received a call from Executive Director, John Merritt, and was unusually hopeful of some answers. A bit later that day, I received a call from a senior officer at the local WorkSafe office, whose statements, in my view, raised more questions than they answered. I perhaps somewhat impolitely instructed him over the phone to get back to me with some answers, and fired off another email to Merritt detailing the shortcomings of the response so far.
The following day (15 May) I received a string of bullet points from our safety guardian that...failed to answer the central questions about this issue. Merritt's response varied from that received over the phone a day earlier from the local office regarding the nature of the works undertaken on 2 April and the time inspectors were on-site. It should also be mentioned there were a number of differences between the account by the local office on 14 May and the account it gave on 2 April, the day asbestos removal works began at the Roberts Street Northcote site. Anyhow, I suppose we are to take Merritt's response as the official line.
That being the case, Merritt states in his 15 May email that no external works took place on 2 April, and that the works that did proceed took place inside, in 'confined areas'. These last words were a new addition to the WorkSafe account, and presumably put there to counter the unseemly possibility that 'inside' meant inside the units at Roberts Street that had broken windows or missing window frames and that were therefore potentially open to the extreme wind conditions on the day.
There was no mention in Merritt's email of what was meant by 'confined' and what checks were made to ensure that no work was done inside the units open to the outside.
Merritt also states in the email that the inspectors, in the course of their inspection on 2 April, discussed procedures for removing asbestos in 'adverse weather conditions', and also discussed the 'inclement' conditions themselves. Judge for yourself whether this answers the central question, asked time and time again, as to whether WorkSafe advised or directed that works finish early that day (as two accounts suggest they did) due to the weather conditions - namely, extreme winds that left thousands without power across Melbourne.
What WorkSafe's response really highlights is that they are unwilling to meaningfully answer hard questions where it involves the actions of a government department, and the potential for political embarrassment of a government that has touted exemplary asbestos safety in a major public housing redevelopment. It would be a very bad look indeed if WorkSafe publicly stated that asbestos removal had proceeded on a day when weather conditions argued against it, even if, as WorkSafe has stated, internal removal works under the prevailing conditions were permitted under the asbestos regulations.
A few hard questions and WorkSafe becomes so tangle-footed they're lucky they're not up on a building scaffold. And what does this show about the WorkSafe ads Tim Holding cites when defending the Victorian Labor Government's excessive advertising spend? They're a rather black joke - propaganda about public safety is not the same as accountable and transparent action to protect it.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
WorkSafe silent after radio challenge
A couple of weeks ago (30 April), I happened to catch WorkSafe Executive Director, John Merritt, talking about workplace safety on Radio National's Australia Talks program. As WorkSafe had failed to respond to questions I raised with them about video footage of an asbestos-contaminated Roberts Street Northcote demolition site, I thought I'd challenge John on air about how disclosure by regulators - or in this case, non-disclosure - might contribute to creating a culture of safety in the workplace.
As an example, I asked John whether it should take two calls and six emails to WorkSafe to get a response on an asbestos issue. He said that it shouldn't, and claimed WorkSafe had been corresponding with me on the matter. I pointed out that I had received no response on the video footage, including to emails I had sent to him personally. He said he was 'happy to take it offline' and I left my details with the program - not, I must say, with any high hopes for any answers. Guess what? I was right. Complete silence has been the only response from WorkSafe following my on-air radio challenge.
If you go to the page for the Australia Talks workplace safety program, about two-thirds of the way through the audio you can hear for yourself my questions and John's response, including his happiness to take the issue offline. You can also read my post in the guestbook. Also online, however inconvenient for WorkSafe, are links to the Roberts Street asbestos coverage on my blog from Holding Redlich's OHS magazine, as well as the OHS magazine of Trades Hall, SafetyNet (see under 'Asbestos News').
For more background on the specific questions arising from the video footage, see this earlier post.
So, are we going to get a response, John? You'll know about this post, because I'll be sending it straight to your inbox, as well as to the WorkSafe information email address. Please feel free to leave a comment. Maybe you can explain the lack of a response by your organisation, or even answer the questions I've asked about the video footage.
Update: Early this morning (Wednesday 14 May) I received a phone call from WorkSafe Executive Director, John Merritt, and again put forward my case for a response from the safety watchdog on asbestos removal works at Roberts Street Northcote on Wednesday 2 April. It is the first response of any kind from WorkSafe following my referral of video footage taken on the day, and I hope it will lead to some answers. Watch this space.
As an example, I asked John whether it should take two calls and six emails to WorkSafe to get a response on an asbestos issue. He said that it shouldn't, and claimed WorkSafe had been corresponding with me on the matter. I pointed out that I had received no response on the video footage, including to emails I had sent to him personally. He said he was 'happy to take it offline' and I left my details with the program - not, I must say, with any high hopes for any answers. Guess what? I was right. Complete silence has been the only response from WorkSafe following my on-air radio challenge.
If you go to the page for the Australia Talks workplace safety program, about two-thirds of the way through the audio you can hear for yourself my questions and John's response, including his happiness to take the issue offline. You can also read my post in the guestbook. Also online, however inconvenient for WorkSafe, are links to the Roberts Street asbestos coverage on my blog from Holding Redlich's OHS magazine, as well as the OHS magazine of Trades Hall, SafetyNet (see under 'Asbestos News').
For more background on the specific questions arising from the video footage, see this earlier post.
So, are we going to get a response, John? You'll know about this post, because I'll be sending it straight to your inbox, as well as to the WorkSafe information email address. Please feel free to leave a comment. Maybe you can explain the lack of a response by your organisation, or even answer the questions I've asked about the video footage.
Update: Early this morning (Wednesday 14 May) I received a phone call from WorkSafe Executive Director, John Merritt, and again put forward my case for a response from the safety watchdog on asbestos removal works at Roberts Street Northcote on Wednesday 2 April. It is the first response of any kind from WorkSafe following my referral of video footage taken on the day, and I hope it will lead to some answers. Watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts
