Garrett's mob after designing a 1 day training course allowed these contractors to become certified.

The minor issue is that there was some rorting of the system, the major issue is that the scheme encouraged poorly trained youngsters to do work for which they mostly unaware of the dangers or consequences.

Garrett's mob had this pointed out to them several times before they proceeded, but more intensive training and safety auditing would have seriously delayed the scheme.

As for trying to lay the blame at the feet of the small contractor, even the government has not be stupid enough to try that one.

Where there have been clear breaches the contractor has been prosecuted, but there has never been any doubt as to where the main responsibility lies.

As for Protagoras, with her psychotic and abusive ramblings has again gone off on a tangent. (it is easy to see why she is regularly banned from the site)

PS
-dyslexia means that you can't spell.
-10s of thousands implies > 10 000. With 14500 direct employees and by your own estimate about 25000 contractors that easily meets the criteria.
-BHP's safety record in mining in Aus is one of the very best in the world.

Again your obvious bias and myopic view of the government scheme exposes your hypocrisy.

"the scheme encouraged poorly trained youngsters to do work for which they were mostly unaware of the dangers or consequences."

It's quite revealing that those who trumpet the self-regulatory prowess of private enterprise blame the government for the fact that private contractors chose to set to work youngsters with inadequate training.

So we ask the questions once more:
Who "knew" that the youngsters were poorly trained?...and who set the youngsters to work in a hazardous environment knowing that they were poorly trained?

You don't have a choice to buy from every business as you proprose, if those businesses (like banks) offer no choice. Now that you cannot even ask for wages as cash, we are forced into banks whether we like it or not.

Where there are supermarket duopolies where is the choice for those without transport or who cannot easily access other food markets etc.

How can a different viewpoint be labelled as lying?

As soon as someone resorts to the "you are a liar" retort you know immediately their own ideology is on shaky ground. Or when one's view is compared to burning witches at the stake. An analogy that can easily be used for the flimsy faith in free market economics. There is no free market, there are too many human failings for it to ever work as you would see it.

Peter Hume, "You have *total* control over whether you buy a service in the private sector, they are liable to account to you, and are liable for misrepresentation, failure to perform, and fraud."

Superficially it would appear that way, however government certifies trades and builders, for example through the Gold Card system in Queensland.

There is misrepresentation from the start because home owners are led to believe that there are minimum standards for all building work and renovation whereas there are none.

There are the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standards and manufacturers' installation requirements (necessary for warranty), but there is NO formal requirement nor compulsion for tradesmen or builders to comply with any of those 'standards'. A 'standard' that doesn't have to be met is NOT a management control NOR a quality control, it is meaningless. Worse, it is misleading and encourages short-cutting, poor work and fraud to occur.

Shonks can easily exist in the building industry and it may take many years for their poor work to be noted through catastrophic failures. By then the business has changed names or the 'entrepreneur' has moved for a while into another profitable and poorly regulated activity.

contd..

Peter Hume, "Businesses are *totally* subject to the sovereignty of consumers, because profit and loss means if they don't provide what consumers want, they disappear."

Again, superficially it appears that way but home owners are most likely making the one-off most expensive purchase of their lifetime, not a regular purchase. It is not an area where consumers can be expected to have knowledge of building practices, be able to discriminate between suppliers, or be able to effectively monitor and resolve disputes. The homeowner is at the mercy of an industry where the 'standards' are not what they pretend to be and the so-called Gold Card trades and Gold Card builders can easily take advantage of them.

Government and industry tell consumers to engage Gold Card tradesmen and builders. The builders' associations (their unions) such as the HIA and Master Builders list and supply names of their members who have Gold Cards. It is reasonable then for a home owner to accept that at face value - that a government (and industry supported) certified Gold Card builder will perform to a certain minimum standard and good building practices would apply.

It is completely unreasonable and reprehensible that home owners are misled to believe that they are protected when clearly that is never the case. Because simple, there is no such thing as a minimum standard of building. It is all a fraud on the public.

For proof, just look at the common serious building faults reported year after year by the various building 'standards' authorities around Australia. Then there are the thousands of home owners who are not 'fortunate' enough to have sub-standard work fail during the insurance period. Of course, having something fail and having pockets deep enough to find the cause when things are behind cladding or under soil or concrete is another matter.

Building 'standards' authorities cannot address sub-standard work until after building completion; and after the home owner has had to pay for it; and after there has been attributable evidence of catastrophic failure.

It is like trapping rats in a wire netting cage!

Poirot,

"Who "knew" that the youngsters were poorly trained?...and who set the youngsters to work in a hazardous environment knowing that they were poorly trained?"

Peter Garrett, the electrical workers union etc Knew.

Many of the new "contractors" had never home insulation before, but sent their workers on the 1 day training program.

While they can be prosecuted for providing an unsafe work place as with any industrial accident, they are effectively immune to manslaughter or negligent homicide charges, as they took the proscribed action and training.