Hardie's repentance won't wash

Jules Andrews

In an important back-down during the Jackson Inquiry last week, 
James Hardie acknowledged its obligations in relation to the 
future compensation of asbestos victims. But Hardie's newly-found 
repentance doesn't wash with unions and asbestos victims. If 
anything the company's latest tactic is evidence that it has 
finally been pinned down for its attempt to skip out on paying 
compensation to victims of its asbestos products.

The NSW Branch of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy 
Union has warned that the company wants too many concessions as 
part of the statutory deal, including immunity from civil and 
criminal charges.

The union's state Secretary Andrew Ferguson called for the 
continuation of consumer, worker and local council boycotts of 
Hardie building products. "The union suspects the company may 
seek to negotiate immunity as part of a settlement and we see no 
merit in that", said Mr Ferguson.

"The inconvenience of prosecution of these company officers is 
nothing compared to the suffering they have caused to victims of 
James Hardie products."

The peak trade union body, the ACTU also called for the 
prosecution of those in the company who have been found to have 
broken the law. "Where there has been wrongdoing in the 
restructurings that have taken place then that should be punished 
by law", said ACTU Secretary Greg Combet.

While acknowledging that the Hardie admission was an important 
breakthrough, Mr Combet said the concessions by the company still 
do not go far enough.

The ACTU has called for negotiations between unions, asbestos 
support groups, the under-funded trust Hardie left behind — the 
Medical Research and Compensation Foundation — and James Hardie, 
to find a solution to the mess created by James Hardie when it 
restructured its operations.

A NSW Special Commission of Inquiry has heard extensive evidence 
that James Hardie reorganised its operations and took assets 
overseas in an attempt to escape its compensation obligations to 
Australian victims of James Hardie asbestos products.

Mr Combet said that the company had indicated that it was now 
prepared to compensate all victims of its asbestos products into 
the future, but that it was still seeking a statutory 
compensation scheme which would limit the levels of compensation 
available.

"The recognition that all victims must be compensated is 
important, but the unions and asbestos support groups do not want 
limits placed on the levels of compensation available — people 
dying from these products are entitled to full compensation under 
the current arrangements.

"What needs to happen now is discussion between the relevant 
parties which tests the company's commitment and identifies a way 
forward.

"The Medical Research and Compensation Foundation and ourselves 
have already outlined ways in which the current arrangements for 
compensating victims can be streamlined. We do not believe there 
is a case for statutory change which limits the level of 
compensation."

So far almost 3000 Australians have come forward to claim 
compensation for illnesses related to exposure to James Hardie's 
asbestos products. 

An estimated 8000 further casualties are expected to fall victim 
during the next 40 years.

The final report of the Inquiry is due for release in mid-
September.