<I and if we are honest many do not see solicitors and any level of justice as fair or honest.
So no one can know if the fix is in,if honesty or party politics will draw up the results of this RC.>

That is rubbish. What possible reason do you have to cast aspersions on the character of the eminent mediator selected to head the commission?

Belly,

Having worked in several countries, I have negotiated with several unions, several who genuinely have the best interests of their members at heart, and several that are more interested in posturing and making work impossible. In the construction industry the latter seems to overwhelm. This is the reason that under Labor construction costs rocketed and work ground nearly to a halt.

Having seen the unions stop work for days because the "workers" would have to work 50m in very light rain, because someone thought he might have got a shock miles from any live power, and a myriad of other pathetic reasons, not to mention the scams in charging a levy on the lunch and drinks suppliers on site, my opinion of the unions is very low. The overseas specialists went home thinking that Australians are stupid and lazy.

This royal commission is to force much of what Rudd and Garrett have refused to release as to the advise they received and their response. The pink Batts debacle is a prime example of where Labor and the unions talk of safety, but ignore it when they are in charge.

Dear Belly,

"The four fatalities is one of the most calculated acts
of political bastardry and hypocrisy in Australia's
history. Four lives were lost,
... about 120 houses caught fire in a program
employing more than 12,000 people in the space of a year.
During this time a million homes were insulated. This was
up from 67,000 homes a year previously."

"Of course, these deaths were tragedies. But what was the
rate of house fires, injuries, and deaths prevailing
during the Howard years? The CSIRO's basic research
developed further by Possum Comitatus at Crikey - found the
rate of fires, injuries and deaths was actually four times
higher during the Howard years than during the period of
the home insulation program."

"The correspondence on the public records and tabled at the
various inquiries shows the government was aware of the
risks and had communicated these to the State Authorities."

"Contrary to the false assertions in the Mainstream Media the
Queensland Coroner did not blame the Federal Government.
Culpability, according to the Coroner was shared three ways:

1) The State Authorities:

"Under our Constitutional arrangements, workplace health
and safety is primarily within the domain of State Governments."

2) The Companies:

"That the employers of the 3 people whose deaths were
investiagted by this inquest failed to adequately discharge
their responsibilities is evidenced by their conviction
of offences under electrical and workplace safety legislation."

3) And in one case, the victim:

"Despite being directed, not to use metal staples,
Mitchell chose to do so and died as a direct result."

(Mitchell also did not turn off power to the house
as he'd been instructed to do).

Mr Abbott has not indicated which questions
remain unanswered by the eight or more inquiries completed
so far.

These include, "Minter Ellison's risk managmeent plan. Minter
Ellison's final risk register, The 2010 Alan Hawke Review for the
Prime Minister and Cabinet, the 2010 Senate Standing Committee
Report, and the 2012 NSW Coronial inquest."

As Austin states:

"Those responsible ... for cynically exploiting the
deaths of four young men deserve total repudiation at the
ballot box."

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/we-really-must-talk-about-the-pink-batts,5622

This whole debacle is ignorant of safety laws that exist. isn't that up to employers not to put their employees into harms way. Employers are responsible for the safety of employees. Not surprising that 3 out of the four died in QLD. I do not know what sort of an answer Abbott is looking for. The host of investigations already completed apparently have not yet given the desired answer.

Alan Austin points out in the link I gave earlier:

"As with every scheme - perfectly good girders were
dropped into Sydney Harbour in the 1920s. Materials were
wasted and workers injured and killed building the
Great Ocean Road, the Snowy River Scheme and the West
Gate Bridge. And the Adelaide-Darwin Railway during the
Howard years. No one labels these disasters, catastrophes,
and rorts. No one condemns the governments that
commissioned and financed them."

"The Auditor-Generals Report into the scheme highlighted the
need for shonky installations to be re-done and for the
crooks to be prosecuted. Yes, that all cost time and
money. But to economists none of that was waste."

We need to rememberd the urgent task was not primarily to
insulate buildings. That was secondary. The main purpose of
this was as a stimulus package to save us from the Global
Financial Crisis. Which it did. The main purpose of the
stimulus packages was to get $42 billion into circulation as
rapidly as possible. "This they did. All of the $42 billion
ended up precisely where it was intended - in Australia's
steadily growing economy."

Austin tells us that:

"Assessing all the data, it is a great loss to Australia that
the scheme was not continued through to the end.
It was truncated purely in response to a media-frenzy of
totally irrational fear and outrage purely to benefit the
Coalition."

"Those responsible for this and for cynically exploiting the
deaths of 4 young men deserve total repudiation at the
ballot box."

Read the entire link given earlier. It's a real eye-opener.
And it's not something you'll read in the Mainstream Media.

Er, 579,

Were you not going to get back to us with what it is we already know? Or you already know.

You say <<I don't see anything coming out of this, don't we already know what happened>>.

I don’t know who “we” is but I don’t know.

So if you already know what happened perhaps you could share that with us.

Can’t wait to hear.

Still waiting?