25millions to proove what?

[***super_nova***]

Whoever pays for the job is the client (in this case the Rudd Labor government). The person who undertakes to do the job is the contractor. The contractor employs workers to do the job. Workplace safety is the contractor's responsibility, not the client's. The four deaths resulted from dodgy contractors failing to properly train their workers and provide a safe workplace. The home insulation scheme was a success overall, and only this government of fools would try to blame Labor for what happened on particular work sites.

 

[freakiness]

---

@kennedia_nigricans wrote:

if i am an electrician and i don't turn off the power before i start working is it the prime ministers fault?

---

Yes, if you're a Labor PM

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@my*favourite*poster wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Punch - the point is that we are spending 25mill simply to try and find out if Rudd knew the deaths would occurr. The other reviews have already resolved that these accidents were OHS workplace accidents that were isolated from the government but Abbott is pressing on trying to find proof that doesn't exist by taking it to a Royal Commission.

Yet in comparison, Howard sends troops into Iraq because there was a 'suspicion' that Iraq was holding weapons of mass destruction even though he had no proof. In fact, very quickly it turned out that our intelligence organisations had been told that there were no weapons. Told by who? ASIO were issued reports by MI5 and the CIA. This is well established now. Yet that information was ignored  Was it, or were people not prepared to take the risk that the information they had was not enough or not reliable enough? Which 'people"? Do you think the Australian public would have accepted Howard sending troops across if they had been told the truth instead of a scare campaign which turned out to be a lie? and he still sent our troops to risk their lives for nothing. Did he have a choice? Of course he did. Canada told the US to go jump and to come back when they had some proof. We should have done the same. Don't we have some kind of agreement whereby when we are called we have to go? No.  I'm sure that I read about that somewhere. Did he really know that it was "for nothing"? Yes

On the one hand there is a determined digging to uncover something that isn't there just in an attempt to persecute a former prime minister for something beyond his control. Well, that government did leave us with some pretty unclear negligence and insurance laws.... and hence the changes that came into effect in January. On the other hand a blind ignorance that sacrificed young Australians so that Howard could still play with the big boys in the US and the UK. Every one of those soldiers chose to join the Defence Force, I don't think conscription has occurred since 1918. They chose that career knowing the risks involved, I am pretty sure that even basic history lessons at school (even with our education levels) teaches kids that people who go to war sometimes die and/or injured. Vietnam politics aside, we usually send our troops to die for a cause. In Iraq we sent them on a lie.

Where is the Royal Commission into the latter?

---

Is there a need for a Royal Commission into the latter, it has been established who owed the duty of care to our soldiers and who pays their compensation. Our soldiers are direct employees of the government. The "neighbourhood rule" established/es who owes those people compensation.

Are you suggesting that we try and get the "big Boys" to pay their compensation, that it is they who owed the Duty of Care? I'm pretty sure that all that would have been outlined in the international agreements that Australia signed re war...

---

I am not suggesting anything the US or the UK have a duty of care. I don't even hint that so not sure what you are on about.

In the case of the Iraq war, the responsibility lies wholly in the hands of our government.

However, I am not sure why you keep going on about compensation. Noone has mentioned compensation. A Royal Commission is not about compensation. It is about bringing people to account and determining responsibility and liability.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@my*favourite*poster wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Punch - the point is that we are spending 25mill simply to try and find out if Rudd knew the deaths would occurr. The other reviews have already resolved that these accidents were OHS workplace accidents that were isolated from the government but Abbott is pressing on trying to find proof that doesn't exist by taking it to a Royal Commission.

Yet in comparison, Howard sends troops into Iraq because there was a 'suspicion' that Iraq was holding weapons of mass destruction even though he had no proof. In fact, very quickly it turned out that our intelligence organisations had been told that there were no weapons. Told by who? ASIO were issued reports by MI5 and the CIA. This is well established now. Yet that information was ignored  Was it, or were people not prepared to take the risk that the information they had was not enough or not reliable enough? Which 'people"? Do you think the Australian public would have accepted Howard sending troops across if they had been told the truth instead of a scare campaign which turned out to be a lie? and he still sent our troops to risk their lives for nothing. Did he have a choice? Of course he did. Canada told the US to go jump and to come back when they had some proof. We should have done the same. Don't we have some kind of agreement whereby when we are called we have to go? No.  I'm sure that I read about that somewhere. Did he really know that it was "for nothing"? Yes

On the one hand there is a determined digging to uncover something that isn't there just in an attempt to persecute a former prime minister for something beyond his control. Well, that government did leave us with some pretty unclear negligence and insurance laws.... and hence the changes that came into effect in January. On the other hand a blind ignorance that sacrificed young Australians so that Howard could still play with the big boys in the US and the UK. Every one of those soldiers chose to join the Defence Force, I don't think conscription has occurred since 1918. They chose that career knowing the risks involved, I am pretty sure that even basic history lessons at school (even with our education levels) teaches kids that people who go to war sometimes die and/or injured. Vietnam politics aside, we usually send our troops to die for a cause. In Iraq we sent them on a lie.

Where is the Royal Commission into the latter?

---

Is there a need for a Royal Commission into the latter, it has been established who owed the duty of care to our soldiers and who pays their compensation. Our soldiers are direct employees of the government. The "neighbourhood rule" established/es who owes those people compensation.

Are you suggesting that we try and get the "big Boys" to pay their compensation, that it is they who owed the Duty of Care? I'm pretty sure that all that would have been outlined in the international agreements that Australia signed re war...

---

I am not suggesting anything the US or the UK have a duty of care. I don't even hint that so not sure what you are on about.

In the case of the Iraq war, the responsibility lies wholly in the hands of our government.

and undoubtedly the government are paying for that.

However, I am not sure why you keep going on about compensation. Noone has mentioned compensation. A Royal Commission is not about compensation. It is about bringing people to account and determining responsibility and liability. and why do you think that responsibility and LIABILITY has to be determined? Cos I am pretty sure that if those insurance companies can find any loopholes, that they won't want to pay, so it needs to be established for now and in the future, who does. What happens when the caps are met, for example? That's what Negligence is - establ;ishing who has responsibility and liability, otherwise they don't know who pays!

They're not having the Commission to determine that those people are dead! That is indisputible - it's been established! Now we gotta know who pays and when they pay!

As far as what changes they are, I hardly believe that they have added an extra 2 Semester of Negligence Law to my course if the changes were negligible as you suggest, eh? It's a whole new ball game now.

---

Anyway, you're right, you're always right. It's always your view that is right. Sometimes, ya really do have to look at the big picture, not just the one staring you in the face,

But think about it for a minute, a government really led us into war on a lie, just so they'd still get invited to dinner paerties with the USA? There weren't other issues at play?

and here, with this issue, I'll leave you with this to ponder

Royal Commission

• Royal Commission into HIH Insurance (2001–2003), investigated the collapse of HIH Insurance, then Australia's second largest insurance company
• Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry ("Cole Royal Commission"), (2001–2003), investigated the conduct of industrial relations within the building industry

Have a good Christmas and see ya next year! (Going away for New years on Boxing Day). Stay safe,

BTW, any more boats recently? Haven't seen any threads.

[donnashuggy]

wasn't it heat exhaustion that they died of?

[polksaladallie]

---

@my*favourite*poster wrote:

---

Every one of those soldiers chose to join the Defence Force, I don't think conscription has occurred since 1918.

---

Huh?   What country are you living in?

Are you saying that I voted in 1972 for nothing?

[silverfaun]

Loath as I am to enter this thread on the backs of 4 young men who needlessly died, but surely linking this tragedy to a war is appalling to say the least.

As you all so conveniently seem to have forgotten: Garrett went to Rudd on many occasions alerting him to the catastrophe that was unfloding & Rudd wouldn't listen.

After weeks of being hammered by media and more deaths Rudd finally had no choice but to pull the program.

The upshot of all Rudds mistakes is he was fired, Garrett was told he had to resign from the front bench by Gillard but he refused to go & threatened to blow the whistle on the 4 deaths tragedy so they had to keep him & then later moved him onto another portfolio.

There was a lot of cover up, Rudd and Gillard refused to release all the papers from that time from Garrett warning them of the dangers.

In a nutshell, if you all want to still defend the appalling disregard Rudd had for young lives that's your preogative, but at least the families will get some closure even if it does cost money to get there.  It will be well worth it after the $billions Labor wasted.

Maybe some on here have no regard for due process if it lays open the criminal actions of Labor.

[lakeland27]

the rantings of newsltd journalists don't make for facts. the evidence is (scroll back) that work-related deaths decreased markedly under labor. (and in roofplace installation work) now, the LNP are removing the body who's oversight was the direct contributor to the improvements in workplace safety.

he has announced a return to the howard ABCC or the 'merchant of death' as it was known. he's the one going back to a regime that presided over hundreds of workplace deaths per year. this royal commission is totally political, if you can't do a good job yourself vilify your predecessors.

[silverfaun]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

the rantings of newsltd journalists don't make for facts. the evidence is (scroll back) that work-related deaths decreased markedly under labor. (and in roofplace installation work) now, the LNP are removing the body who's oversight was the direct contributor to the improvements in workplace safety.

he has announced a return to the howard ABCC or the 'merchant of death' as it was known. he's the one going back to a regime that presided over hundreds of workplace deaths per year. this royal commission is totally political, if you can't do a good job yourself vilify your predecessors.

---

So now any opinion, be it a poster or any who have an opposing opionion  to yours is a News Ltd ranter??

That excuse is so old now can't you at least find something else to blame it on? Like criminal negligence by Labor & Rudd then Gillard for covering up the the incompetence.

She stood by along with her comrades & did nothing., after all isn't that what she was so good at, covering up criminal behaviour.

I'd like to see Rudd jailed for his criminal negligence but we all know that will never happen, he's too rich.

[***super_nova***]

It is obscene when an opposition uses the deaths of unfortunate workers to gain power... It's even more obscene when they continue to use millions of tax dollars to continue the charade...  People died on many government projects; nobody speaks that building of the hydroscheme /harbour bridge /opera house should have stopped because there was an accident, or millions of dollars spent on investigation.  If anybody should be held responsible it is the people who supposed to supervise and train these young men.

[spotweldersfriend]

The Labor government had a reasonable expectation that no one would die when the batts were being put in place.
The Liberal government had a reasonable expectatation the Australians would die when they sent military personnel to an illegal -read invasion-war.
Now shouldn't there be a major commission. of inquiry into that,given that Howard knew there were no WMDs and the invasion was not given the go ahead by the UN? Why aren't these men not locked up for life?