Of course they won't be charged with anything after all stupidity is not a crime.

I'm with Ludwig on this issue.

Laws re work safety and training are mainly state matters as is supervision of work in progress.

One good reason for the referendum on federal government/local government financing is the problem of demand management. The currency issuing government is responsible for monitoring demand for both labour and resources and when the private market demand slumps, as it invariably must as confidence wavers, then the sovereign government needs to take stimulatory action such as it did when introducing the cash handouts, the school buildings program, and the insulation program.

Next time there is a slump local government could quickly be given funds for footpaths, kerb and guttering, road maintenance etc. In the circumstances of 2008 the Rudd gang of four did reasonable well.

In NSW and some other states the state government ensured that they creamed off some of the school buildings cash and didn't do enough to ensure home insulation contractors were up to the mark.

It would have been preferable if there had been some shovel ready emergency housing projects. Because there weren't, in 2008 the schools program was a good second choice as that program provided work and demand everywhere in Australia. That increase in demand is what the Rudd cabinet had to aim for.

An excellent point, SM...

"It is only the immunity they have as parliamentarians that saves them from criminal or civil prosecution."

I have added to my criteria list and will only consider voting now for a candidate or party actively campaigning for the repeal of all such parliamentary immunity.

Look Rudd said "Sorry" so that's that. Game, set and match. Bye now gotta zip mate.

....
Look Rudd said "Sorry" so that's that. Game, set and match

chrisgaff1000, what a cold hard, non improve response that is.

If only we wernt talking about the VERY AVOIDABLE loss of four young lives, one could perhaps agree with you and, If that's Rudds view, then I suggest that he doesn't get to comfortable in the lodge.

Not only are politicians exempt from prosecutions, they are also exempt from financial redress.

I would also suggest that we go a bit easy on Garrett, as he fought Rudd on that very issue and was told to JUST DO IT!

At the end of the day, this, along with Rudds other major stuff up, the illegals, will send his prime ministership to an early grave.

Perhaps calling for open debate is not such a great idea.

The Coroner reminds me of the three blindfolded men who tried to identify the elephant.

Speaking of that, the elephant in the room is that builders are not required to comply with as a minimum, the building standards and manufacturers' installation guides. So much for government regulations.

On top of that the government building standards bodies are diplomats. Building is controlled by the big builders and developers who contribute so generously to political parties and swing big sticks during the term of governments. That is why showers in Australian houses leak, damp courses may or may not be installed, houses built by the cut and fill method all smell musty and so on. It is also why decks collapse and ballustrades on buildings give way through corrosion and other predictable problems.

Regardless of what redundant risk assessments and guidelines were drafted for insulation installation, the systemic deficiencies that result in substandard building in Australia would still have been present. There is no comparison with Europe for example.

Was Mr Rudd responsible?

Yes, for throwing money into insulation when there was public infrastructure that could have been built and for long term benefit.

But no, if one is talking about deaths or other problems from poor building practices. Not where the builder with the Gold Card doesn't even have to appear on site and no, he isn't obliged to meet Australian Standards and manufacturers' installation guides as an absolute minimum.