Buy-oz Home
Dr Stephen Covey Audio Book CD - 7 Habits
About Dr Stephen Covey
Recognized as one of Time magazine's 25 most influential Americans, Dr Stephen R. Covey has dedicated his life to demonstrating how every person can truly control their destiny with profound, yet straightforward guidance. As an an internationally respected leadership authority, family expert, teacher, organizational consultant, and author, his advice has given insight to millions.
First Things STEPHEN AudioBook CD NEW COVEY
First Things First by Stephen R. Covey Get other Stephen Covey 7 Habits AudioBooks click here learn how to balance your life First things first - abridged 1 CD by Stephen R. Covey Audio Book CD Brand New (still shrink wrapped): 1 CD ABRIDGED First Things First is a revolutionary guide to managing your time by learning how to balance your life. Traditional time management suggests that working harder smarter and faster will help you gain control over your life and that increased control will bring peace and fulfillment. But in the first real breakthrough in time management in years the authors of First Things First apply the insights of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People to our daily pro click here.....
Habit Covey Synergize Stephen
Habit 6- Synergize - Dr Stephen R Covey Brand New : 70 minutes 1 CD LEARN THE HABIT OF CREATIVE COOPERATION FROM THE AUTHOR HIMSELF World-renowned expert in leadership and organization Dr. Stephen R. Covey presents an in-depth look at Habit 6 of The 7 Habits Synergize. Filled with never-before-released material from Dr. Covey this CD includes new and insightful examples in the author's trademark engaging speaking and teaching style. * The Highest Activity in Life: Habit 6 is about working with others to create solutions that value others as well as yourself. In this in-depth audio program Dr. Covey teaches that high-trust relationships are comprised of people who value their differences buil more information.....
Stephen AudioBook
Leadership by Stephen R. Covey Get other Stephen Covey 7 Habits AudioBooks click here The 4 Imperatives of Great Leaders Stephen R. Covey - Leadership - Audio Book CD Brand New (still shrink wrapped): 3 CDs Great organizations are created by great leaders—leaders who can unleash the highest and best contribution of their team toward their organizations’ most critical strategic priorities. Leadership: Great Leaders Great Teams Great Results is FranklinCovey’s flagship leadership-development program. It takes a “mind-set skill-set tool-set” approach to developing leaders who can unleash the talent and capability of their team against the organization’s highe more.....
Proactive Covey Be Stephen CD Habit AudioBook
Brand New : 63 minutes 1 CD LEARN THE HABIT OF EFFECTIVENESS FROM THE AUTHOR HIMSELF World-renowned expert in leadership and organization Dr. Stephen R. Covey presents an in-depth look at Habit 1 of The 7 Habits Be Proactive. Filled with never-before-released material from Dr. Covey this CD includes new and insightful examples in the author's trademark engaging speaking and teaching style. * You Can Take Control: Habit 1 takes head-on the "victim mentality" that paralyzes and hampers so many people. Habit 1 says "You are not a product of your circumstances; you can choose your response to every situation you face." * More Than an Audio Book: This is not a reading of the Habit 1 chapter from more.....
More about Dr Stephen Covey
Stephen R. Covey (born October 24, 1932 in Salt Lake City, Utah) wrote the best-selling book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Other books he has written include First Things First, Principle-Centered Leadership and The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Families. His latest book, The 8th Habit, appeared in 2004.
Covey lives with his wife Sandra and their family in Provo, Utah, home to Brigham Young University, where Dr. Covey taught prior to the publication of his best-selling book. A father of nine and a grandfather of forty-nine with his wife, he received the Fatherhood Award from the National Fatherhood Initiative in 2003.
Dr. Covey established the "Covey Leadership Center" which, on May 30, 1997, merged with Franklin Quest to form FranklinCovey, a global professional-services firm and specialty-retailer selling both training and productivity-tools to individuals and to organizations. Their mission statement reads: "We enable greatness in people and organizations everywhere". In 2008, Dr. Covey launched The Stephen Covey's Online Community. The site is a mash up of online courses, goal management and social networking. He uses it as a place to teach his most recent thoughts and ideas on current topics and self leadership. Covey holds a BS degree in Business Administration from University of Utah in Salt Lake City, an MBA from Harvard University, and a Doctorate of Religious Education (DRE) in Mormon Church History and Doctrine from Brigham Young University. He also holds membership of the Pi Kappa Alpha International Fraternity.
The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People
The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Covey's most well-known book, has sold more than 15 million copies worldwide since its first publication in 1989. (The audio version became the first non-fiction audio-book in U.S. publishing history to sell more than one million copies.) Many of the ideas and much of the language recast the content of the classic 1966 Peter F. Drucker book The Effective Executive, wherein Drucker wrote: "Effectiveness, in other words, is a habit",[citation needed] and which includes a chapter called "First Things First". In Covey's version, he argues against what he calls "The Personality Ethic", something he sees as prevalent in many modern self-help books. He instead promotes what he labels "The Character Ethic": aligning one’s values with so-called "universal and timeless" principles. Covey adamantly refuses to confound principles and values; he sees principles as external natural laws, while values remain internal and subjective. Covey proclaims that values govern people’s behaviour, but principles ultimately determine the consequences. Covey presents his teachings in a series of habits, manifesting as aprogression from dependence via independence to interdependence. Dr Stephen Covey 7 Habits Audio Books in New Zealand
The Habits
* Habit 1: Be Proactive: Principles of Personal Choice
* Habit 2: Begin with the End in Mind: Principles of Personal Vision
* Habit 3: Put First Things First: Principles of Integrity & Execution
* Habit 4: Think Win/Win: Principles of Mutual Benefit
* Habit 5: Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood: Principles of Mutual Understanding
* Habit 6: Synergize: Principles of Creative Cooperation
* Habit 7: Sharpen the Saw: Principles of Balanced Self-Renewal
Follow-up titles to The Seven Habits aim both to add to the original and to form a cohesive philosophy on personal, principle-based leadership. They come in the format of audio books as well (such as the title Beyond The 7 Habits). Covey has also written a number of learning-books for children. His son, Sean Covey, has written a version for teens: The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Teens. This version simplifies Covey's 7 Habits for younger readers to better understand them.
Covey's latest book The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness (published in 2004) functions as the sequel to The Seven Habits. Covey claims that effectiveness does not suffice in what he calls "The Knowledge Worker Age". He proclaims that "[t]he challenges and complexity we face today are of a different order of magnitude." The 8th habit essentially urges: "Find your voice and inspire others to find theirs..."
In March of 2008 Dr. Covey launched the Stephen Covey's Online Community. The site is a mash up of online courses, goal management and social networking. Dr. Covey uses it as a place to teach his most recent thoughts and ideas on current topics and self leadership, his books as well as goal setting and reaching. The content is shared via videos, podcasts, printable text and online activities. Users are also able to set personal goals, track their progress and share their progress with others within the community. The community is currently growing at a rate of over 1000 users a week.
Gay-rights groups have criticized Covey for his activity in opposing same-sex marriage in Hawaii in the early 1990s.
Religious views
As a practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Stephen Covey has authored several devotional works for Latter-day Saint or Mormon readers, including:
* Spiritual Roots of Human Relations (1970)
* The Divine Center (1982)
* 6 Events: The Restoration Model for Solving Life's Problems (2004).
Evangelical writer Bill Gordon suggests that Mormon theology and cultural practices undergird Covey's writing for a general audience. Specifically, note the notion of "agency" (comparable with Covey's emphasis on "choosing" or "choice") and Covey's belief in a personal God. Himself "[s]ensitive to accusations that his books are little more than Mormon teachings repackaged as management training, Covey says he never introduces religion or politics into his books or worldwide seminars."
Covey served a two-year mission in England for the LDS Church. Covey also served as the first president of the Irish Mission of the Church starting in July of 1962. When Covey studied business at Harvard he would on occasion go and preach to crowds on Boston Common.
Honors and awards
* 2003 Fatherhood Award from the National Fatherhood Initiative
* The Thomas More College Medallion for continuing service to humanity
* The Sikh's 1998 International Man of Peace Award
* The 1994 International Entrepreneur of the Year Award
* The National Entrepreneur of the Year Lifetime Achievement Award for Entrepreneurial Leadership
* One of Time Magazine's 25 most influential Americans (1996)
* Accepted the inaugural nationally-acclaimed California University of Pennsylvania's Corporate Core Values Award from the California University of Pennsylvania on behalf of the FranklinCovey Corporation at the "national Franklin Covey Conference" (December 2006).
site map
Wood case a 'jigsaw puzzle', jury told
The prosecution's case against Gordon Wood was like a
thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle, the jury at his murder trial has been
told.
Crown Prosecutor Mark Tedeschi, QC, said that, despite three or
four pieces of the puzzle missing, the picture was still clear.
"This thousand-piece puzzle clearly shows this accused was
responsible for the murder of Caroline Byrne," he said.
Wood, 45, has denied throwing his 24-year-old girlfriend to her
death at The Gap in June 1995.
In his closing address today, Mr Tedeschi said that the scream
three witnesses heard about 11.30pm on the night of Ms Byrne's
death was most likely "Caroline being rendered unconscious or
incapacitated ... her death was not a suicide but murder".
The jury heard that the most colourful part of the trial centred
around Andrew Blanchette, a former boyfriend of Ms Byrne.
Mr Tedeschi said that Mr Blanchette was more concerned about
details coming out about an intimate relationship with a schoolgirl
while he was a police officer than he was about being a suspect in
a murder case.
But Mr Blanchette had "an iron-clad alibi" said Mr Tedeschi
"whereas the accused has no alibi at all".
The trial before Justice Graham Barr continues today.
Wood case a 'jigsaw puzzle', jury told
The prosecution's case against Gordon Wood was like a
thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle, the jury at his murder trial has been
told.
Crown Prosecutor Mark Tedeschi, QC, said that, despite three or
four pieces of the puzzle missing, the picture was still clear.
"This thousand-piece puzzle clearly shows this accused was
responsible for the murder of Caroline Byrne," he said.
Wood, 45, has denied throwing his 24-year-old girlfriend to her
death at The Gap in June 1995.
In his closing address today, Mr Tedeschi said that the scream
three witnesses heard about 11.30pm on the night of Ms Byrne's
death was most likely "Caroline being rendered unconscious or
incapacitated ... her death was not a suicide but murder".
The jury heard that the most colourful part of the trial centred
around Andrew Blanchette, a former boyfriend of Ms Byrne.
Mr Tedeschi said that Mr Blanchette was more concerned about
details coming out about an intimate relationship with a schoolgirl
while he was a police officer than he was about being a suspect in
a murder case.
But Mr Blanchette had "an iron-clad alibi" said Mr Tedeschi
"whereas the accused has no alibi at all".
The trial before Justice Graham Barr continues today.
Chronic oversharing not just a celebrity disease
Victoria Beckham got rid of her hair extensions because they got in the way during sex. Kate Beckinsale likes to squirt her breast milk across the room. Britney Spears is considering a breast reduction so she can wear more PVC on stage, while Paris Hilton thinks having sex is disgusting if it's not with someone she loves. Confessions such as these caused the British comedian Ricky Gervais to wonder why so many celebrities "live their lives like an open wound" but chronic oversharing is not just a celebrity disease. Producers of reality and lifestyle television shows have no trouble finding people desperate to talk about their sex lives or air their overeating issues on camera and those who can't get a television gig can simply start a blog or YouTube channel. And then there's Facebook, where relationships are announced, questioned and destroyed in tiny, instantly published snippets. (Jill regrets not giving that hottie her number. Jack thinks a certain person should figure out what the hell she wants. Jill is no longer in a relationship.) If this were all confined to cyberspace and reality television, we could choose to opt out. But unfortunately, the confession compulsion has spread to the real world. At a recent dinner function, I was seated next to a stranger who told me about her divorce, abortion, gynaecological troubles, abusive childhood and teenage sexual experimentation all before the main course was served. I responded with polite interest and sympathy but cheerfully declined to reciprocate with confessions of my own. Later, I learnt that this woman had found me "uptight" and "secretive". I was reminded of the open letter Variety editor-in-chief Peter Bart wrote to Matt Damon, chastising the actor for being "utterly secretive" about his private life. Bart compared Damon with the famously reclusive Marlon Brando but even Damon fronts up for loads of interviews and events and has spoken about his wife and family frequently, though never in great detail. Sure, he likes to "keep his private life private", but since when were privacy and secretiveness synonymous? And why is an attachment to the former seen as, in the words of Bart, "mildly pathological"? Today we all live with the expectation that we must happily spill our guts for whoever cares to slosh through them. Once considered a virtue, discretion is now viewed as either a character flaw or a sign that you're hiding one. We've become so used to hearing about the lovers' tiffs, sexual kinks and medical problems of celebrities that those who refuse to offer up such details are treated with outright hostility - as in the attack on Damon - or suspicion. As one gossip commentator said in response to a web posting about the "obsessively private" Beyonce: "Of course she has a right to privacy. My question is, what does she have to be so private about?" There's no doubt the pressure to tell all is driven partly by the same nosiness that has long driven people to listen through walls and peep through keyholes. It's also true that there's been a market for salacious confessions at least as far back as the 1930s, when True Story Magazine was a best-seller. But what seems to be new is the idea there's something wrong with those who don't want the details of their domestic, romantic or medical lives splashed across a magazine or posted on a blog. Consider the judgmental, negative language used to describe those who value their privacy - "mildly pathological", "uptight", "obsessively (or notoriously) private". There is no shame or disapproval for the person desperate to know another's secrets; that's healthy curiosity, a bit of fun. The person refusing to provide gossip fodder, however, is charged with emotional frigidity, psychological damage and social awkwardness. Intimate relationships may require a certain amount of openness but it's a mistake to extrapolate this to the world-at-large. If we're lucky, we each have one or two people with whom we are truly close. We trust these people with our darkest truths because we have, over time and shared experiences, developed an intimacy that allows us to feel safe. If our confidants treat our revelations with the respect they deserve - if they forgive our sins, understand our weaknesses and share our sorrows - the bonds of love and friendship are made stronger still. Feeling validated, supported and even healed by the exchange, we're able to re-enter public life with a new inner strength and confidence. I should acknowledge that there are situations in which public confession can be genuinely therapeutic. Trauma survivors sometimes find speaking out to be healing; victims of prejudice are often empowered by proudly declaring their race, disability or sexual orientation; recovering addicts may need to publicly admit to their problem. On a similar note, many people have found strength and inspiration in the confessions or public declarations of others. The civil rights and women's movements were built on the sharing of deeply personal testimonies. But unless you can explain how knowing that Guy Ritchie reportedly likened Madonna's body to a "piece of gristle" has made the world a better place, I'm not buying the "gossip is a social good" crap. There's also, of course, a strong history of "confessional" literature to consider. Philosophers such as Montaigne, Rousseau and de Beauvoir illustrated abstract ideas and theories about society by referring to their own lives. The so-called confessional poets - Plath, Lowell and Sexton - used personal experience as a way to write about suicide, maternal ambivalence and depression: issues that, while of broad concern, tend to defy generalisation. More recently, Joan Didion and David Sedaris, as well as countless other memoirists, have built careers out of writing from, but never solely about, their own lives. There's a big difference, though, between a personal account designed to contribute to wider understanding and a personal confession calculated to win the confessor money/fame/public absolution. Unfortunately, I fear we're becoming so used to the latter that any writer using the first-person will be read in this mode. It's time for me to make a meta-confessional confession: I have, in the past, used my own life in my writing. I wrote about my hormonal teenage shenanigans in an essay on teen sexuality. I used a bout of life-threatening illness as a way into a discussion of death-themed poetry. I reflected on my body image to introduce a book chapter about feminism and beauty. Or that's what I thought I was doing. Many of my readers thought I was confessing my darkest secrets and asking them to either return in kind or judge and advise. I've received confessions of adultery, teenage promiscuity, drug use and prostitution. I've had emails from people revealing rapes, abortions and life-long loneliness. I'm touched, of course, but also uncomfortable and disturbed. It's wonderful that a piece of writing can make someone feel less alone but troubling that a small, carefully chosen and crafted anecdote would inspire strangers to reveal incredibly intimate and often upsetting details of their lives. And then there are those who think a public "confession" is an invitation for judgment or advice. I've been sent religious screeds, promises to pray for me and several descriptions of the hellfire awaiting me. I've been told to get counselling, see a psychiatrist, have more sex and get a makeover. Which brings me to what I think is the best argument of all in favour of keeping some things to yourself: the importance of retaining an inner privacy. I'm talking about the deliberate cultivation of a self that no one can touch, a self that is beyond sniping, judgment and criticism from others. In a recent New York Times Magazine cover story, internet celebrity Emily Gould revealed that at the height of her micro-fame as a blogger on the popular gossip site Gawker, she began to suffer debilitating panic attacks. Gould's self-revelatory style had won her scads of readers but, when the comments turned nasty, she found she had nothing to hide behind. She'd revealed everything and now everything was under attack. More than 1000 readers commented on the online version of Gould's Times article. Almost all the comments were negative and a good deal of them were flat-out cruel. One hopes that Gould really has, as she claims in the article, made peace with her former over-sharing self and kept her vow to keep details of her private life private from now on. The challenge for Gould - for anyone whose work or social life depends on a certain amount of personal revelation - is to ensure the private self is strong enough to cope when the public self comes under siege. Emily Maguire is author of Princesses And Pornstars.
Chronic oversharing not just a celebrity disease
Victoria Beckham got rid of her hair extensions because they got in the way during sex. Kate Beckinsale likes to squirt her breast milk across the room. Britney Spears is considering a breast reduction so she can wear more PVC on stage, while Paris Hilton thinks having sex is disgusting if it's not with someone she loves. Confessions such as these caused the British comedian Ricky Gervais to wonder why so many celebrities "live their lives like an open wound" but chronic oversharing is not just a celebrity disease. Producers of reality and lifestyle television shows have no trouble finding people desperate to talk about their sex lives or air their overeating issues on camera and those who can't get a television gig can simply start a blog or YouTube channel. And then there's Facebook, where relationships are announced, questioned and destroyed in tiny, instantly published snippets. (Jill regrets not giving that hottie her number. Jack thinks a certain person should figure out what the hell she wants. Jill is no longer in a relationship.) If this were all confined to cyberspace and reality television, we could choose to opt out. But unfortunately, the confession compulsion has spread to the real world. At a recent dinner function, I was seated next to a stranger who told me about her divorce, abortion, gynaecological troubles, abusive childhood and teenage sexual experimentation all before the main course was served. I responded with polite interest and sympathy but cheerfully declined to reciprocate with confessions of my own. Later, I learnt that this woman had found me "uptight" and "secretive". I was reminded of the open letter Variety editor-in-chief Peter Bart wrote to Matt Damon, chastising the actor for being "utterly secretive" about his private life. Bart compared Damon with the famously reclusive Marlon Brando but even Damon fronts up for loads of interviews and events and has spoken about his wife and family frequently, though never in great detail. Sure, he likes to "keep his private life private", but since when were privacy and secretiveness synonymous? And why is an attachment to the former seen as, in the words of Bart, "mildly pathological"? Today we all live with the expectation that we must happily spill our guts for whoever cares to slosh through them. Once considered a virtue, discretion is now viewed as either a character flaw or a sign that you're hiding one. We've become so used to hearing about the lovers' tiffs, sexual kinks and medical problems of celebrities that those who refuse to offer up such details are treated with outright hostility - as in the attack on Damon - or suspicion. As one gossip commentator said in response to a web posting about the "obsessively private" Beyonce: "Of course she has a right to privacy. My question is, what does she have to be so private about?" There's no doubt the pressure to tell all is driven partly by the same nosiness that has long driven people to listen through walls and peep through keyholes. It's also true that there's been a market for salacious confessions at least as far back as the 1930s, when True Story Magazine was a best-seller. But what seems to be new is the idea there's something wrong with those who don't want the details of their domestic, romantic or medical lives splashed across a magazine or posted on a blog. Consider the judgmental, negative language used to describe those who value their privacy - "mildly pathological", "uptight", "obsessively (or notoriously) private". There is no shame or disapproval for the person desperate to know another's secrets; that's healthy curiosity, a bit of fun. The person refusing to provide gossip fodder, however, is charged with emotional frigidity, psychological damage and social awkwardness. Intimate relationships may require a certain amount of openness but it's a mistake to extrapolate this to the world-at-large. If we're lucky, we each have one or two people with whom we are truly close. We trust these people with our darkest truths because we have, over time and shared experiences, developed an intimacy that allows us to feel safe. If our confidants treat our revelations with the respect they deserve - if they forgive our sins, understand our weaknesses and share our sorrows - the bonds of love and friendship are made stronger still. Feeling validated, supported and even healed by the exchange, we're able to re-enter public life with a new inner strength and confidence. I should acknowledge that there are situations in which public confession can be genuinely therapeutic. Trauma survivors sometimes find speaking out to be healing; victims of prejudice are often empowered by proudly declaring their race, disability or sexual orientation; recovering addicts may need to publicly admit to their problem. On a similar note, many people have found strength and inspiration in the confessions or public declarations of others. The civil rights and women's movements were built on the sharing of deeply personal testimonies. But unless you can explain how knowing that Guy Ritchie reportedly likened Madonna's body to a "piece of gristle" has made the world a better place, I'm not buying the "gossip is a social good" crap. There's also, of course, a strong history of "confessional" literature to consider. Philosophers such as Montaigne, Rousseau and de Beauvoir illustrated abstract ideas and theories about society by referring to their own lives. The so-called confessional poets - Plath, Lowell and Sexton - used personal experience as a way to write about suicide, maternal ambivalence and depression: issues that, while of broad concern, tend to defy generalisation. More recently, Joan Didion and David Sedaris, as well as countless other memoirists, have built careers out of writing from, but never solely about, their own lives. There's a big difference, though, between a personal account designed to contribute to wider understanding and a personal confession calculated to win the confessor money/fame/public absolution. Unfortunately, I fear we're becoming so used to the latter that any writer using the first-person will be read in this mode. It's time for me to make a meta-confessional confession: I have, in the past, used my own life in my writing. I wrote about my hormonal teenage shenanigans in an essay on teen sexuality. I used a bout of life-threatening illness as a way into a discussion of death-themed poetry. I reflected on my body image to introduce a book chapter about feminism and beauty. Or that's what I thought I was doing. Many of my readers thought I was confessing my darkest secrets and asking them to either return in kind or judge and advise. I've received confessions of adultery, teenage promiscuity, drug use and prostitution. I've had emails from people revealing rapes, abortions and life-long loneliness. I'm touched, of course, but also uncomfortable and disturbed. It's wonderful that a piece of writing can make someone feel less alone but troubling that a small, carefully chosen and crafted anecdote would inspire strangers to reveal incredibly intimate and often upsetting details of their lives. And then there are those who think a public "confession" is an invitation for judgment or advice. I've been sent religious screeds, promises to pray for me and several descriptions of the hellfire awaiting me. I've been told to get counselling, see a psychiatrist, have more sex and get a makeover. Which brings me to what I think is the best argument of all in favour of keeping some things to yourself: the importance of retaining an inner privacy. I'm talking about the deliberate cultivation of a self that no one can touch, a self that is beyond sniping, judgment and criticism from others. In a recent New York Times Magazine cover story, internet celebrity Emily Gould revealed that at the height of her micro-fame as a blogger on the popular gossip site Gawker, she began to suffer debilitating panic attacks. Gould's self-revelatory style had won her scads of readers but, when the comments turned nasty, she found she had nothing to hide behind. She'd revealed everything and now everything was under attack. More than 1000 readers commented on the online version of Gould's Times article. Almost all the comments were negative and a good deal of them were flat-out cruel. One hopes that Gould really has, as she claims in the article, made peace with her former over-sharing self and kept her vow to keep details of her private life private from now on. The challenge for Gould - for anyone whose work or social life depends on a certain amount of personal revelation - is to ensure the private self is strong enough to cope when the public self comes under siege. Emily Maguire is author of Princesses And Pornstars.
Navy asbestos puts thousands at risk
AUSTRALIAN sailors are being exposed to deadly asbestos fibres
because the navy continues to use illegal asbestos-contaminated
parts, years after they were outlawed.
Thousands of sailors and civilian contractors are likely to have
come into contact with the potentially lethal carcinogen, a report
seen by defence chiefs says, and the Defence Force could face fines
of more than $100 million for breaches of work safety laws.
And that figure could be millions of dollars higher if sailors,
as predicted, contract lung cancer or other diseases as a result of
their exposure.
A risk assessment report prepared by the defence contractor
SYPAQ Systems, obtained under freedom-of-information laws, found
"thousands of personnel" could have been exposed to chrysotile
asbestos, a known cancer-causing agent.
"The risk to the safety of personnel … is significant and
must be addressed … The likelihood that [exposures to
asbestos] will occur is almost certain and the consequences are
potentially catastrophic," the report said.
Reports show nearly 250,000 parts held in naval stores are
suspected of containing asbestos. And hundreds of those parts,
including gaskets, hoses, even compressed asbestos sheeting, are
still being issued to naval ships and bases in breach of state and
federal laws.
"It can be assumed there have been over 350 issues of 775
asbestos items to operational units and ship repair organisations
since 31 December 2003 (when asbestos use was prohibited)," the
SYPAQ report found.
A spokesman said defence did not accept SYPAQ's finding that
"thousands" had been exposed and said the potential fines figure of
$100 million was "purely speculative". He conceded, though, that
asbestos parts were issued in breach of bans.
A furious Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, condemned the ADF's
handling of its asbestos problem, calling it unacceptable.
"We wouldn't let a major company get away with it and we should
be just as tough on ourselves. I expect defence to change its
culture of endless exemptions and waivers," he said.
Attempts to speak to SYPAQ Systems, the author of the report,
were unsuccessful.
The navy first conceded sailors' lives were being endangered in
May, when it issued an all-ship-all-shore warning identifying a
fraction of the contaminated items still in use.
"To date 45 items have been confirmed as containing asbestos.
All units, ships and establishments are to check if stockholdings
are held for the items listed below … The asbestos eradication
program is ongoing and there is likely to be additional candidates
identified," the Defence Materiel Organisation alert warned.
The use of and importation of asbestos-containing materials was
made illegal in 2001 in Australia, with the prohibition coming into
force on January 1, 2004.
But the Defence Force won an exemption to continue using
chrysotile asbestos parts until 2007, on two strict provisos: that
the parts were "mission-critical" and no non-asbestos replacements
could be found.
In December that exemption was controversially extended again
until 2010 by the Government's safety and compensation council,
despite fierce expert opposition, and even grave reservations from
within defence.
Mal Pearce, the director-general of defence's occupational
health, safety and compensation branch, raised concerns that
defence was not trying hard enough to rid itself of the deadly
substance.
"The commission had for some years been very flexible with
defence, during which time defence had given repeated assurances
that it would fix the problem of chrysotile eradication … Some
commissioners pointed out that a national prohibition on asbestos
had existed since 2001."
It is likely that all the navy's use of asbestos parts falls
outside the Defence Force exemption, and is illegal.
Only 318 asbestos items were approved for defence use last
December, and that number has since been reduced to 209. Approved
are a number of spare parts for the Caribou transport aircraft,
F-111 strike bomber, and Mk127 Lead-in Fighter fleets, and a small
number of gaskets for ground equipment and vehicles.
The SYPAQ Systems report found that the issue of "several
hundred confirmed asbestos items" to operational naval units was
"in direct contravention of state and federal laws".
Defence could face fines in the order of $115 million if found
guilty of breaching the federal Occupational Health and Safety Act
by exposing employees to serious harm or death, the report
said.
As well, civilians and defence employees who develop lung cancer
or other diseases could sue for damages and compensation. The
average claim is estimated at $360,000.
