There are posters here who have argued on previous occasions that reviews and cases should be allowed to be resolved first to decide the facts, and there shouldn't be any pre-judgement.

As well, the same posters have often called for Royal Commissions, inquiries and suchlike.

A Royal Commission is independent and its processes are rigorous and transparent. Its fact-finding is open to contributions from all interested parties.

What is happening here is that aspersions are directly and indirectly being cast on the independence and competence of the Royal Commissioner to do his job. One fellow has outrageously referred obliquely to possible corruption of the RC, "So no one can know if the fix is in"! The motivation of such critics must be regarded with suspicion and their foolish claims disregarded.

The RC is conducting hearings. The report is not far off, when the facts will be available for scrutiny.

onthebeach, the devil in the detail with RC's and a lot of other investigations is in the terms of reference and what's included and excluded. Sometimes its about the independence of those conducting the inquiry, more often its the agenda of those calling for the inquiry.

I suspect that for the most part those in favor of this inquiry think that the terms of reference or scope of previous inquiry's has not adequetly included the governments role (the fix was in by the scope) or just want mud dished on Ruddand the ALP, those opposed to the RC either don't want the governments role exposed or they think the fix is in with terms of reference.

My overall impression is that RC's and the like rarely have the power to fully investigate the role of the government in the issue. Qld's Fitzgerald inquiry was the last that I can recall that clearly did so.

R0bert

As stated earlier, "If Mr Abbott feels that this
'disaster' requires another inquiry - then he
has not indicated which questions remain unanswered by
the eight or more inquiries completed so far. These
include, Minter Ellison's Risk Management 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."

"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 cycnically exploiting the deaths
of four young men deserve total repudiation at the ballot
box."

Looking back at history we're told that "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 as 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. This has been done!

Continued baying for blood - and continued pursuit of further
inquires and expense is simply to provide a diversion from
the shambles of the current government's past 100 days in
government. It's simply a ploy to protect themselves and
retrieve themselves in the year ahead. The pink batts provides
an excellent diversion.

Terms of Reference

http://www.homeinsulationroyalcommission.gov.au/About/Pages/TermsofReference.aspx

Appear quite broad, but specific and allow for any extra work as and if required. See these clauses for example,

"without limiting the scope of your inquiry or the scope of any recommendations arising out of your inquiry that you may consider appropriate, We direct you to consider:
all relevant matters occurring during the period:
starting at the commencement of the policy development that led to the introduction of the Program; and
ending at the termination of the Program; and
all remedial measures undertaken by the Australian Government after the Program was terminated.

AND, without limiting the scope of your inquiry or the scope of any recommendations arising out of your inquiry that you may consider appropriate, We declare that you may:
consider:
damage to property claimed to have arisen from the implementation of the Program; and
the effects on pre-existing home insulation businesses resulting from the damage; and
make findings or recommendations about those matters;

but you are not required by these Our Letters Patent to do so."

to be continued..

continued..

"

AND We further declare that you are not required by these Our Letters Patent to inquire, or to continue to inquire, into a particular matter to the extent that you are satisfied that the matter has been, is being, or will be, sufficiently and appropriately dealt with by any of the following:
the inquests in Queensland and New South Wales into the deaths of the persons named in paragraph (d);
the findings of any court or tribunal inquiring into serious injuries, or loss or damage, claimed to have arisen from the Program;
inquiries by State or Territory governments, police forces or other agencies into the deaths of the persons named in paragraph (d) or into serious injuries, or loss or damage, claimed to have arisen from the Program;
the findings of the Report by the Australian National Audit Office into the Program;
the findings of the Review of the Administration of the Program;
any other relevant inquiry, proceeding or finding."

Best wait until the facts have been found and sieved through. The RC is in progress after all and anyone can request to appear before it, or provide written information pertinent to its work.

Some of the wording there is disregarding, we already have health and safety rules. This is clearly an Abbott expenditure.