I am surprised how fast this RC has been set up and by the huge costs in doing so.
It may well be Kevin Rudd unfairly failed to take the advice of his Minister.
But lets look at the way Australian workplace safety works.
If we can do that I think the costs of flogging a now gone PM may seem excessive to all.
Margret Thatcher first changed the British system of OH and S.We took our current system from hers.
It calls for Employer/Employee consultation on work place safety, always.
Accountability falls first on them both for accidents, fines and even imprisonment should follow the system says.
Union health and safety officers, mostly trained officials, have the right to inspect work sites and even stop work if it is unsafe.
*Here is a fault line in the system, some militant unions use this power to *create* safety issues*
Without a doubt in my view ten layers of different people had a closer hands on duty to find these installers, the guilty few, and stop them working.
Work Cover in all its different forms in any state did no do its job, coming in *only after a death*
Employee training has by *law* to include safe work practices instruction.
Too safe work practice calls for tool box meetings at least at the start of a job weekly or even daily if jobs change.
Workers and boss must review what is said and record them on paper.
In the end Tony Abbott5 and his front bench governing as if they are in opposition may see only wasted money come from this Royal Commission.
It is long term practice of all governments both sides, to contract out work to shonks, even the Ministers family.

Goodness and OMG, Belly! Sorry stuff.

It is plain why you would like all similar to you to link arms and get in step to find something, anything to beat up that Abbott bloke for.

There you go, I have given you and 'in', so go for it.

The problem with the soldiers for either side having a go at this, is that the systemic problems of the construction industry will never see the light of day. Besides, both have a vested interest, albeit different, in ensuring it stays that way.

The crux of the problem is that while there are Australian Standards, a Building Code and manufacturers' installation guides, no builder is obliged by regulation to meet any of that as a minimum. For example, thousands of new houses have wet areas that leak, causing structural damage. However if the relevant building Standard is followed that is a very unlikely event indeed.

During construction, the owner cannot challenge (say) the lack of proper waterproofing or the usual particle board/timber floor in lieu of the recommended compressed sheeting. The owner has to wait until problems evidence which can be years since and prove the original slack building and corner-cutting that did not meet the Standard, caused the damage. The builder will blame 'maintenance' and all sorts of other 'outs'. It is like trying to trap a rat in a wire-netting cage.

So the guvvy building standards inspectors are always diplomats and never proactive.

OK, on with the usual exchange of insults between the warring sides. The very last thing either side would want to do is represent the public and fix systemic problems, when it is the unions and builders who donate those wads for their electioneering.

Third sentence, 'and' should be 'an'.

I have no intention of answering that poster, ever.
And on putting up this thread want only to get an answer.
What is to be gained from it what out comes and yes why is it forming at a time cuts are about to hurt even cripple.

May I ask this? look at my first post,can anyone see my comments about the filth in my party?
Can they too see my admission Rudd maybe/did not take advice from his minister?
Why then will some make them selves look silly by saying I seek to coverup wrong here.
No matter what the findings are [and they will be damning to Labor] no one will suffer because of the result.
This former union official *Trained in Occupational Health and Safety*
Again puts the step GOVERNMENT REGULATION supports.
An inspection by Employer/Employee is held, union is able to take part.
If it is thought to be unsafe work stops, if boss refuses union or work cover take him to court.
This being the case,that just these first steps should ensure it is fixed in what way can the country,s Prime Minister other than morally beheld to account.
What is Abbott,s reasoning in spending so much
Less than one percent of those working on this project would be union members.
It has always been so in housing.
Unions wanted to get a foot hold, using safety as they do.
Rudd like many here, may have known that and stood for too long against that he however did not hold responsibility for the deaths and firers.
Government run work cover may have blood on their hands,a sloth like group of work dodgers they act only after not before.

Fail!

More subs and more jobs for union officials is not the answer. There are far too many union officials involved in sly deals and visiting knock shops.

It is simple enough, as a minimum requirement all builders must comply with the available Australian Standard and manufacturers' installation guides. In the event that there is no available Standard, Standards Australia to rectify through consultation with industry.

Honestly, as if more union heavies are needed expecting brown paper envelopes with tickets to the footy and spending money for the escort.

Given the nature of politics it's very likely there is a strong element of politicking in decisions around the Royal Commission however given the nature of some of the claims/suggestions surrounding the setup of the scheme I think its well worthy of investigation (and prosecution if those suspicions are proven to be true).

Whilst its not always happened or happened as quickly as it should most of us would have no trouble with an investigation where the CEO of a company was suspected of ignoring important safety advice while pushing a product to market which may then have contributed to the deaths of individuals.

There are other parties who had significant roles in regard to training and equipping installers, their handling of those responsibilities should not negate the responsibility of the instigators of the scheme if its shown that safety warnings were not given due weight in the setup of the scheme.

I don't know the truths of the claims about warnings and some other issues around the pink bats scheme but all to often politicians seem willing to promote schemes which do real harm to individuals with little or regard for that harm done. The idea that some may be held to account for that disregard has some merit.

R0bert