Dear Mr Tapp,

A few corrections to your statements:

1) It was John Howard's Work Choices that
removed workers rights to strike if they
believed a work site to be unsafe. There were
144 deaths in the mining industry in Australia
as a result. Mines that were said to be unsafe -
were forced to continue to operate - for profits.
Unionsand workers did not have access to seismic
charts nor under the new laws could they
question the safety of their work place.
The Beaconsfield diaster was not some freak
accident, but a result of the sacrificing of
worker's safety to corporate profits.

You need to do your research on this topic Sir.
There are plenty of websites that will confirm this
information.

2) As for Hardie and Asbetos. It was thanks to the
Unions that victims and their families received any
compensation at all. Because under -
the Howard Governments New Industrial Relations
Laws and their repressive crackdowns on the
rights of workers that were to make any campaigns
for the victims and their families extremely difficult
in the future. Crippling fines, damages, and prosecutions
from the Federal Government - under the New Laws were
on the agenda. Again, do your research on the topic.

As an Independent candidate - I find your ignorance
quite astounding. Frankly, I don't believe that you could
possibly be capable of winning votes - if this thread is
any indication of your capabilities. They're extremely
limited - to say the least.

Anyway, I shall not be responding to you any further.

I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

If i am correct but safety was an issue that worker could go out on strike for.
This was disregarded by the unions and since when did the unions stand by watching unsafe work practices.
Thats right they did that with labors,garrettt insulation bungle which you still didnt address.

See i am not scared to have my say or stand up for the people, as i do not have to bend over for any of you lot.

We have had billions of tax payers money wasted and more to come.
We have taxpayers money wasted on the broadband bungle.

This is not the labor parties money but the peoples.

And where are your so called leaders , holed up until the dust clears.

Well garrettt wont last and labor has no credentials for financial stability except spend. spend , spend and as such we have to pay, and our children.

now back to the initial post.

We had the unions jumping up and down about asbestos and how Hardies knew the Dangers.

Did the unions give up, did Combet go into hiding.

We had Beaconsfield where the company knew and the unions knew of the OHS safety problems and dangers.

Did the unions give up or go into hiding, No the just made a big media circus about it and blamed the liberal government.

We now have the home insulation problem with Garrett and Labor and Garrett and the unions knew of the OHS safety problems.

Did the unions or labor give up or go into hiding.

Of course they did as it is the Labor government rolling this out.

From this you can see that the unions and labor will do anything when it is conveinient for them, but when it is not they will stick their heads in the sand.

We have the truth, or we just have the standard spin and running and off course put the blame completely on the worker and muddy the facts.

Which in fact Foxy has already done.

Mate, who invited these nutters?.

You got my back up when you wrote:

"As we can see from Foxy that there was no effert to answer the point that was made."

As opposed to you not conversing with her, Captain Soapbox?.

But Runner gets the Golden Gong:

"added to these deaths can be those who were encouraged by flawed lax immigration policies to risk their lives to come to Australia."

You mean, "boat people", eh?. Do a little research beyond "Today Tonight" there, my friend. Australia barely gets a blip in the ocean - so to speak - compared to other nations, but one thing they ALL have in common is fluctuating trends.

The insulation scheme may have been rushed, and Garrett may be incompetent, but the bottom line is, Garrett didn't invent foil insulation. I installed it in the home I built myself more than 20 years ago.
According to legislation, it is the employer's responsibility to ensure a healthy and safe workplace. If a 16 year old boy dies on the job, he clearly wasn't sufficiently well trained or supervised. That is the whole and sole responsibility of his boss.

Grim

The insulation scheme wasnt rushed.

It had so much force behind it you couldnt see what was really comming.

Garret was responsible.
If a boss sends a worker out and has been warned of a serious safety problem and you ignore it are you responsible.

No garrett ignore safety issues so he is responsible.
He could have fixed this at the start and as people were unawhere of the problem then responsibility goes to garrett and labor.

Sgt
you will notice you wally i did respond to fxy's questions even though she ingnored the point.
standard labor policy, ignore quest create spin.

now back to the issue

where are the unions why are they not jumping up and down.

why because it is a labor government.

It is legislators and the applicable enforcement agencies that are charged with creating an environment that is either “permissive”, one that allows non-compliance, or “inhibitive”, one that does not allow non-compliance. This environment must have all elements in place or it will itself be non-compliant. Since this rollout has now been terminated, the questions about its completeness must be asked and answered in full. Let the inquisition begin by all those authorized.

Grim, I know that foil is popular for new homes, but is it appropriate for existing homes or are there special or different regulations to cover this?

We have yet to hear from home insurance companies? If there is any element of commercial or regulatory non-compliance, might we see claims invalidated? Might we see insurance companies requiring certification before policies are renewed? If so will we see compensation claims against both contractors and regulators? Seems this saga might have some way to run yet.

How will the replacement “rebate scheme” fix the problem of non-compliance? Does this just transfer responsibility to the householder?

tapp, StG has a point, you might consider putting a conclusion or proposition to the forum with some backup. If you think for instance, there should be say an inquiry, then offer that with some discussion points