# Royal Commission into botched home insulation scheme.



## Black Devil Dog (22/3/14)

It takes a special kind of inept politician to rush through legislation that causes 4 people to die and 150 houses to catch fire and they don't come much more inept than Kevin Rudd.

The (twice) former Prime Minister and if not the worst Prime Minister in Australia's history, then certainly the worst in living memory, will soon have his moment in the limelight again, when he fronts the Royal Commission into his own governments disastrous home insulation scheme.

Unfortunately for him, but fortunately for everyone else, Rudd's going to have to explain exactly who, was responsible for this catastrophe. 

Newspaper article.


----------



## Bridges (22/3/14)

It could have been such a good thing too, if it had of been set up and run properly. Generated a lot of work, helped people that couldn't have otherwise afforded insulation, helped those same people lower their energy bills, and helped the environment through lower energy use. Great idea. Like many great ideas, It was destroyed by putting it into the hands of politicians.


----------



## fletcher (22/3/14)

Black Devil Dog said:


> It takes a special kind of inept politician to rush through legislation that causes 4 people to die and 150 houses to catch fire and they don't come much more inept than Kevin Rudd.
> 
> The (twice) former Prime Minister and if not the worst Prime Minister in Australia's history, then certainly the worst in living memory, will soon have his moment in the limelight again, when he fronts the Royal Commission into his own governments disastrous home insulation scheme.
> 
> ...


so you're a labour voter...


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

And its was the state governments that where in charge of licencing,safety and regulations under state based OHwS laws. The feds funded it...but they where not responsible for the state based laws that where broken in the first place. If the states did there job, no one would have been killed.


----------



## alcoadam (23/3/14)

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the dodgy tradesmen involved...

And I'm sure this wouldn't happen under Abbott. (nobody be working for the Work Choices hourly rates)


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

90% were not even tradesman...we had one company that started as a dodgy used car couple...then saw the $$$ sign, mad a killing and cried " oh but its not fair your shutting the scheme down..." fuckem. No sympathy whatsoever. Why are they not going for the dodgy employers with shelf companies who broke the law in tge first place and ultimatly caused the death of the individuals.....but then again..that would not be very political.


----------



## peas_and_corn (23/3/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> And its was the state governments that where in charge of licencing,safety and regulations under state based OHwS laws. The feds funded it...but they where not responsible for the state based laws that where broken in the first place. If the states did there job, no one would have been killed.


I doubt many people realize how many "federal" programs are delivered by the states


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

Just about all of them.


----------



## NewtownClown (23/3/14)

Black Devil Dog said:


> It takes a special kind of inept politician to rush through legislation that causes 4 people to die and 150 houses to catch fire and they don't come much more *inept* than Kevin Rudd.
> 
> The (twice) former Prime Minister and if not the worst Prime Minister in Australia's history, then certainly the worst in living memory, will soon have his moment in the limelight again, when he fronts the Royal Commission into his own governments _*disastrous*_ home insulation scheme.
> 
> ...


"The Australian"
need I say more?

They would be just as indignant and critical if the government *had *micro-managed the scheme


----------



## DU99 (23/3/14)

the company's should be held more accountable ,what training and safety equipment was supplied from what a i saw from the guys that did mine wasn't much..it was more a get rich scheme for fly by night company's.


----------



## bradsbrew (23/3/14)

Hierarchy of blame should start with the employer, the training,the industry skills council that developed the qual.


----------



## OzPaleAle (23/3/14)

An interesting read with some solid points regarding the scheme.

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


----------



## Greg.L (23/3/14)

This is going to be the lamest royal commission ever - just a whole lot of people saying "no-one told us not to put staples through electric wires, how were we to know?"

Hardly the sort of stuff to make a lot of front page headlines, but I am sure The Oz will wring a few out of it.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

The Liberals just a scalp. Its nothing more than a blatant attempt at political point scoring. Although it will divert the rapid medias attention away from a high ranking Liberal senator who has been caught with his snout firmly in the trough.


----------



## manticle (23/3/14)

Whichever side of politics it comes from, an enquiry is still valid.

Someone fucked up somewhere.

By the way BDD - I have to be a subscriber to read the article unless I'm missing something?


----------



## huez (23/3/14)

I answered the door at my parents house late one night to the AFP wondering if we had insulation installed. Some guy had made 250 grand and never installed one bit of insulation. If you vote labour or liberal you cant deny how much of a **** up that scheme was

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


----------



## browndog (23/3/14)

alcoadam said:


> I'm sure it had nothing to do with the dodgy tradesmen involved...
> 
> And I'm sure this wouldn't happen under Abbott. (nobody be working for the Work Choices hourly rates)


What work choices?


----------



## Greg.L (23/3/14)

I agree it was handled badly, typical ineptness. Seems the ALP couldn't run the proverbial chook raffle, though they were a better bunch under Hawke/Keating.

But I still think it will lack the political punch the Liberals would like, and wasting money on a royal comission when we have already had parliamentary enquiries isn't going to help anyone.


----------



## browndog (23/3/14)

Black Devil Dog said:


> It takes a special kind of inept politician to rush through legislation that causes 4 people to die and 150 houses to catch fire and they don't come much more inept than Kevin Rudd.
> 
> The (twice) former Prime Minister and if not the worst Prime Minister in Australia's history, then certainly the worst in living memory, will soon have his moment in the limelight again, when he fronts the Royal Commission into his own governments disastrous home insulation scheme.
> 
> ...


Off topic I know, but he indirectly killed a hundred times more by removing the border protection laws.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

browndog said:


> What work choices?


The ones that "Dont exist". There not using work choices...just bits and peices of it..rearranged in a different order and put it in a new document that isnt called work choices


----------



## Black Devil Dog (23/3/14)

manticle said:


> By the way BDD - I have to be a subscriber to read the article unless I'm missing something?


Sorry, I should have provided a link to a free news site.

Here's an ABC article about the inquiry.


----------



## sponge (23/3/14)

I installed batts for about 6 months when I was at uni for a bit of extra cash. The rediculously dirty and sweaty conditions ended any further work I would do, and for an abnormally sweaty man like myself, it was just too uncomfortable to continue.

The first day me and my mate (we both worked installing them together) were just told to lay them down in any spaces we found on top of the ceiling. That was our training.

Luckily for us we weren't dumb enough to install them over lights or anything like that. Not sure how many other installers they had who wouldn't have known any better..


----------



## Bribie G (23/3/14)

The Australian isn't a news site, it's a celebrity gossip and Pell/Reihart/Abbott propaganda funnel courtesy of Murdoch. Thanks for the real link.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

sponge said:


> The first day me and my mate (we both worked installing them together) were just told to lay them down in any spaces we found on top of the ceiling. That was our training.
> 
> Luckily for us we weren't dumb enough to install them over lights or anything like that. Not sure how many other installers they had who wouldn't have known any better..


So...do you blame your employer for cutting corners and being dodgy.....or blame those that set the scheme up. 

I dont think the fed gov wrote as part of the scheme " its ok to cut corners to get it done"


----------



## sponge (23/3/14)

Although the employer was a school friends dad who owns his own reputable construction company, I'd be pointing the finger directly at the employer.

The amount of dodgy companies that opened up purely to cash in on the scheme was amazing. Yes, the government may have paid for the scheme but in the end it came down to lack of training by the employer who was just keen to shove as many batts into ceilings as they could and make a mint by doing so.

The more houses they could complete in a day, the more money they made. Simple. I'm sure there's a few companies around who would have given some sort of training to their employees, but 95% of the companies involved in this scheme purely wanted to see quantity over quality.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

The amount of dodgy guys was increadable. The mob here in town had a fleet of cheap ass shit box vans and small pantecks and there sole goal was to get as much done as quick and cheap as possible. They where f&%g used car dealers rorting the system. The even had the hide to get on national TV out the front of parliament with Rudd pleading to keep the scheme open cause they had a fleet of vehicles and a shed full of insulation to deal with. Made me sick to my stomach whatching them sleazy fuckers splashed all over the national news


----------



## professional_drunk (23/3/14)

This royal commission is a royal waste of time and money. Any party in government screw things up. Now this is setting a precedent so that when labour get in power they can start royal commissions into Abbotts government which isn't full of saints. More waste to come.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (23/3/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> So...do you blame your employer for cutting corners and being dodgy.....or blame those that set the scheme up. All of them.
> 
> I dont think the fed gov wrote as part of the scheme " its ok to cut corners to get it done" Even though that's exactly what they did.


There should have been proper planning, training, regulation and certification, all of which are the responsibility of governments. The fact that dodgy operators were able to get on board and cash in, is a further indictement on the poor planning at government level. 

It was a rush job and it was cobbled together on the run by ministers and bureaucrats who were no doubt being pushed along by an irrational Rudd.

One of the kids that died was 16 years old, others were in their early 20's, deaths that could have easily been avoided.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

They did not write in "Its ok to cut corners to get it done" Thats just bullshit. Sure the setting up of the funding was fast tracked...but considering how long it would normally take funding to get thru it needed to be done.

The gov required that installers where licenced & trained. The states took over that part. Some as the school hall funding. The NSW gov where taking a big cut of the funding to line there treadury accounts, then allowing the big builders to milk it for all its worth. When you looked at what the private schools built for less money it makes it hard to point the finger at the fed gov, as all they did was supply the money. Same as the pink batts scheme


----------



## JDW81 (23/3/14)

Black Devil Dog said:


> One of the kids that died was 16 years old, others were in their early 20's, deaths that could have easily been avoided.


Just like all those kids in Afghanistan…...


----------



## browndog (23/3/14)

professional_drunk said:


> This royal commission is a royal waste of time and money. Any party in government screw things up. Now this is setting a precedent so that when labour get in power they can start royal commissions into Abbotts government which isn't full of saints. More waste to come.


Except if you are family or friends of the deceased.


----------



## browndog (23/3/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> They did not write in "Its ok to cut corners to get it done" Thats just bullshit. Sure the setting up of the funding was fast tracked...but considering how long it would normally take funding to get thru it needed to be done.
> 
> The gov required that installers where licenced & trained. The states took over that part. Some as the school hall funding. The NSW gov where taking a big cut of the funding to line there treadury accounts, then allowing the big builders to milk it for all its worth. When you looked at what the private schools built for less money it makes it hard to point the finger at the fed gov, as all they did was supply the money. Same as the pink batts scheme


I believe one of Rudd's staffers was given two whole days to cost it out.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

browndog said:


> I believe one of Rudd's staffers was given two whole days to cost it out.


So.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (23/3/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> They did not write in "Its ok to cut corners to get it done" Thats just bullshit.


Ok, I didn't mean that they wrote that, I was just quoting you, but given they way they rushed it together, they certainly had a philosophy of "cut corners to get it done".


----------



## browndog (23/3/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> So.


I'd call that a little more than "fast tracked"


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

browndog said:


> Except if you are family or friends of the deceased.


There is no dispute its was a tradgedy and never should have happened. But a Coronial inquest pointed the finger at the employer & the state regulator. That is fact. The Royal Commision is a waste considering its chasing a Liberal agenda. Sure, the will find that the funding was rushed, but they will also find that it was the same reasons that the coronial inquest found as to why those people, unecesarily lost their lives. 

A Royal commision can be a double edged sword. If it doesnt go Abbotts way, people wont be happy that he wasted time and money on it. Its interesting that its only a very short commision with a rather narrow term of refference. Should that not be saying something as to the motivation behind it.


----------



## goomboogo (23/3/14)

manticle said:


> Whichever side of politics it comes from, an enquiry is still valid.


Holding an inquiry is valid however a Royal Commission is not. Investigating the haphazard, thoughtless meanderings of a Prime Minister who should never have been allowed anywhere near policy formulation should not be within the remit of a Royal Commission.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

It should be about how and why those guys died. Both sides of goverment are both equally guilty of poor policy decision,waste,miss management etc. And if anyone thinks that one side is worse than the other, then you are seriously kidding yourself. If we had a Royal Commission every time these things happened we would run out of Judges and lawyers. A proper enquiry is one thing, but using it for political gain makes it no better than what you are trying to investigate.


----------



## browndog (23/3/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> It should be about how and why those guys died. Both sides of goverment are both equally guilty of poor policy decision,waste,miss management etc. And if anyone thinks that one side is worse than the other, then you are seriously kidding yourself. If we had a Royal Commission every time these things happened we would run out of Judges and lawyers. A proper enquiry is one thing, but using it for political gain makes it no better than what you are trying to investigate.


What is the political gain? what is abbott's agenda Stu? I don't think this is being run so the Libs/Nats can go har har har.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

browndog said:


> What is the political gain? what is abbott's agenda Stu? I don't think this is being run so the Libs/Nats can go har har har.


You think Abbott is doing it because he wants a fair, balanced outcome ....... He set the terms of refference and appointed a Liberal leaning Commisioner.....


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

http://m.canberratimes.com.au/comment/pink-batts-royal-commission-could-rebound-on-abbott-20140110-30my7.html


----------



## professional_drunk (23/3/14)

May 12, 2016: In news today prime minister Bill Shorten announces a royal commission into why Scott Morrison wasn't present on Manus Island to supervise the guards that could have prevented the death of an asylum seeker and multiple injuries sustained by other asylum seekers.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

professional_drunk said:


> May 12, 2016: In news today prime minister Bill Shorten announces a royal commission into why Scott Morrison wasn't present on Manus Island to supervise the guards that could have prevented the death of an asylum seeker and multiple injuries sustained by other asylum seekers.


 and widened the terms so see how the decisions where made and hoe the funding was supplied quickly

In Seperate news Opposition leader Arthur Sinodinous refutes Bill Shortens Royal Commision by stating "The government only funded the asylum seeker and refugee scheme. We where not responsible for training and employing gaurds. We only stated that they needed to be trained and qualified."


----------



## dammag (23/3/14)

Where is the SWMS the contractors supplied for installing insulation, particularly foil insulation.

They should all obviously state isolate all power before entering ceiling space. If they don't then what? Is it the Government who failed to ask for the SWMS or the Employer who failed to enforce it?

There is so much safety legislation these day's that it is generally over the top. Where did this example fall down.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

Its up to the employer to enforce the employee to fill it out. The gov agency, workcover, is responsible for prosecuting the employer for not having the SWMS & JSA's filled out. But rarely do you see a workcover inspector out and about checking. But if things go toes up..the first thing they want is SWMS. If you cant produce them on the spot...your in the poo. The employer must be able to produce them on demand. I have been on sites where the Workcover dude rocked up ......oh boy....wasnt that a fun morning...


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

dammag said:


> Where is the SWMS the contractors supplied for installing insulation, particularly foil insulation.
> 
> They should all obviously state isolate all power before entering ceiling space. If they don't then what? Is it the Government who failed to ask for the SWMS or the Employer who failed to enforce it?
> 
> There is so much safety legislation these day's that it is generally over the top. Where did this example fall down.


NSW Workcover legeslation (2000) states that the employer shall have SWMS & JSA's filled for all jobs, and it is the employee's responsibility to fill out the form to the rquirement of the employer. Supervisors and managers are responsible for employee's complying to these direction. There are incrementle penalties increasing from the employee all the way to the general manager and CEO.


----------



## QldKev (23/3/14)

Up here I was chasing to use up the Gov grant for insulation without any out of pocket expense. A few offered to insulate the main house without the lower section (low roof) which I was not in favor for as it made up 1/3 of the house. I was looking at one that offered to insulate the main house, and leave enough bats for the lower section so I could do it myself. Final quote ended up offering blow-in insulation for the lot. Talking to the laborer on the day I asked where are the fan and down-light surrounds. From my sheetmetal trade I knew these were common back in WA. He said they don't use them, they just turn all the exhaust fans on in the house when they blow the insulation in to prevent it falling onto them. Obviously the insualtion covered all down lights. Needless to say, within 1 month I had bits of paper insulation and shit blowing back into the house every windy day. Even the insulation looked like treated paper and not real insulation, you could still read print on it.

Do I blame the Gov, no way, I thank them for offering the incentive. I blame the local company for dodgy practices and think that's who they should be chasing.


----------



## Lemon (23/3/14)

In many small businesses there aren't the resources, time, safety dedicated personnel, or the risk of being inspected, that there is in large business(much of my experience).
Simply put, if I've never been asked, or told about swms, jsa, etc, let alone ever been visited, or any of my surrounding associates, either, why would I worry?
That said very hard to drop in to inspect a worksite in a private property (not sure that the home qualifies as a place of work under the w/c definition, but the work does). And very difficult to find a mobile PCBU (employer) who doesn't want to be found.

Lemon


----------



## OzPaleAle (23/3/14)

QldKev said:


> Up here I was chasing to use up the Gov grant for insulation without any out of pocket expense. A few offered to insulate the main house without the lower section (low roof) which I was not in favor for as it made up 1/3 of the house. I was looking at one that offered to insulate the main house, and leave enough bats for the lower section so I could do it myself. Final quote ended up offering blow in insulation for the lot. Talking to the laborer on the day I asked where are the fan and down-light surrounds. From my sheetmetal trade I knew these were common back in WA. He said they don't use them, they just turn all the exhaust fans on in the house when they blow the insulation in to prevent it falling onto them. Obviously it covered all down lights. Needless to say, within 1 month I had bits of paper insulation and shit blowing back into the house every windy day. Even the insulation looked like treated paper and not real insulation, you could still read print on it.
> 
> Do I blame the Gov, no way I thank them for offering the incentive. I blame the local company for dodgy practices and think that's who they should be chasing.


Ahh blow in insulation, one of the biggest regrets when we built, its horrible stuff. My builders solution for the fans was folded cardboard…..


----------



## bradsbrew (23/3/14)

dammag said:


> Where is the SWMS the contractors supplied for installing insulation, particularly foil insulation.
> 
> They should all obviously state isolate all power before entering ceiling space. If they don't then what? Is it the Government who failed to ask for the SWMS or the Employer who failed to enforce it?
> 
> There is so much safety legislation these day's that it is generally over the top. Where did this example fall down.


Despite the national OHS harmonisation, all states are still responsible for enforcement of workplace health and safety. The department of justice and attorney general controls in QLD, as in all states of Australia people are required to undergo training in general site induction before working within the construction industry. This training includes endorsed and non-endorsed components, in QLD, ASQA governs whether the training company is meeting compliance. At the time of the scheme there was a transition from DETA to ASQA as the controlling national body, except for the states that would not participate which throws national harmonisation right out the window.
Back to the GSI/whitecard, or whatever colour your state has, every person who enters a worksite should know how to perform a risk assessment and know their rights if asked to perform an unsafe act. As an employer, you have a responsibility to provide a safe worksite/area for each employee. If an employer decides to engage an employee to perform a job that entails a high risk activity such as work in a confined space or around exposed electrical cable, (yes QLD still does not require electrical cable within a roofspace to be contained within a conduit) a readily available risk assessment/JSA/SWMS should be on site and accessible by each employee.
This is why online whitecard training has been investigated by the governing bodies. 
Many RTO , registered training organisations, also took the many grab and pushed through training without investigating the requirements needed to meet compliance. 
This is where the training authority could come under investigation, how were these training companies meeting compliance under their scope of registration?

In closing, how can the prime minister, as leader of the body funding a scheme, be held accountable for the actions of people at different levels, for whom legal obligations and responsibilities are a pre-requisite to undertaking the project.
If this is the precedent, the prime minister could be held accountable for each and every death on Australian jobsites.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

Lemon said:


> In many small businesses there aren't the resources, time, safety dedicated personnel, or the risk of being inspected, that there is in large business(much of my experience).
> Simply put, if I've never been asked, or told about swms, jsa, etc, let alone ever been visited, or any of my surrounding associates, either, why would I worry?
> That said very hard to drop in to inspect a worksite in a private property (not sure that the home qualifies as a place of work under the w/c definition, but the work does). And very difficult to find a mobile PCBU (employer) who doesn't want to be found.
> 
> Lemon


If its your home and your doing the work its ok. But as soon as you employ or paysomeone to do work then workcover kicks in. Either you become responsible for worksite safety or the tradesman you hire is responsible. It becomes a case of who is working for who. Normally a tradie has workcover and public liabilty. As do builders. But you then have to be aware that the builder may take responsible of your house, and you then have to abide by his directions.


----------



## bradsbrew (23/3/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> If its your home and your doing the work its ok. But as soon as you employ or paysomeone to do work then workcover kicks in. Either you become responsible for worksite safety or the tradesman you hire is responsible. It becomes a case of who is working for who. Normally a tradie has workcover and public liabilty. As do builders. But you then have to be aware that the builder may take responsible of your house, and you then have to abide by his directions.


And as many homeowners whom employ contractors fail to understand is they become the principal contractor, so if the sub contractor fails to have personal injury or liability insurance the home owner is responsible.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

bradsbrew said:


> And as many homeowners whom employ contractors fail to understand is they become the principal contractor, so if the sub contractor fails to have personal injury or liability insurance the home owner is responsible.


Yes. Very much so. If someone comes on your property and gets injured....you cope it. Thats why your home insurance has public liability.


----------



## AndrewQLD (23/3/14)

We have to pay an annual insurance to cover the cleaning lady who spends 2 hours a fortnight cleaning our house in case she sprains her self picking up the dustpan and brush.


----------



## AndrewQLD (23/3/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Yes. Very much so. If someone comes on your property and gets injured....you cope it. Thats why your home insurance has public liability.


Public liability on your home insurance doesn't cover someone you are paying to do work on your property.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

AndrewQLD said:


> Public liability on your home insurance doesn't cover someone you are paying to do work on your property.


If they are a licenced tradie then they should have there own.


----------



## bradsbrew (23/3/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> If they are a licenced tradie then they should have there own.


Yes they should, and most people would just expect they do. But if they don't the home owner suffers.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

I think its part of your licence registration that you do have insurance


----------



## dammag (23/3/14)

I am a contractor, I have my own Pty Ltd company and I have all insurances and licences for what I do.

I am required to do a JSA for every job that I do. I would think that these contractors would be required to do the same.

Who is at fault? The party that didn't enforce these requirements or the party that didn't fulfil these requirements?


----------



## Black Devil Dog (23/3/14)

In Qld, works up to $3,300 inc GST, can be done by unlicenced operators. I would imagine that if they're unlicenced, they would probably be uninsured also.

To get work on any substantial job sites you need to be Pty Ltd Co, licenced, insured, along with all the other OH&S requirements, but to do small stuff, I don't reckon you do. Might be wrong.

I can't remember how much our insulation would have cost (if they gave us a $ value) and I'd have to look it up, but the missus is out and I couldn't be arsed. I'm sure it was under $3,300.


----------



## bradsbrew (23/3/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I think its part of your licence registration that you do have insurance


Not in QLD. To be a licenced contractor you need to fulfil the trade qual and small business management requirements. Ridiculous, yes.


----------



## browndog (23/3/14)

Interesting comments re liability for Tradies in domestic situations, can't recall ever hearing anything in the news about home owners ending up liable for Tradies getting injured at their premises.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

dammag said:


> Who is at fault? The party that didn't enforce these requirements or the party that didn't fulfil these requirements?


In NSW it is the Contractot or Employer. So its the party who didnt fullfill. The enforcement is actually part of the workcover (2000) act that legally requires the employer ( or principle contractor ) to provide a safe work environment. You dont neccesarally need to enforce it as it is a legal requirment. It is illegal to not provide a safe work environment & SWMS/JSA is part of this. The same as its illegal to drive drunk. Its not enforced but if you get caught your gone. So if the Insulation mobs where not doing SWMS and making sure the work area was safe then they where breaking the law. Period. If some one dies or gets injured on a work site, someone, some how has broken the law. They have broken the law by not providing a safe work place. This is what happened with the deaths of the insulation installers. You cant blame anyone but the contractor or employer. Its the law.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

browndog said:


> Interesting comments re liability for Tradies in domestic situations, can't recall ever hearing anything in the news about home owners ending up liable for Tradies getting injured at their premises.


Thats because the tradie should have his own insurance.....well maybe not QLD...


----------



## Black Devil Dog (23/3/14)

I'm not sure what the requirements are in NSW, but like I said earlier, anyone can do minor trade works up to $3,300 inc GST in QLD.

That people were able to get in and do the work without any accreditation, is a major failing of the scheme. You can blame the bosses all you like, (and rightly so) but it seems as though there were no checks in place to ensure it was done properly and safely.


----------



## spog (23/3/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Thats because the tradie should have his own insurance.....well maybe not QLD...


Tradies HAVE to have their insurances ,not having a go at you Dbs,but someone/ employers have fcuked up it has cost lives.
The system is a system and it is useless ,that system is the licensing ,inspectors,paper work checkers whatever title we chose to give them.They are all part of the system that honestly couldn't find it's arse in the dark.
When things go arse up all the system does is try to cover its self any way it can.
I have been a chippy since 1980,my licence has NOT once been checked by any person who's job it is to do so,not once.
In the last 15 years only twice has any site I have been on been checked.Twice in 15 years!.
Every time I have rung work safe or been too their office I got no satisfaction as they have all been at a conference,and I have rung numerous times and made countless enquiries all with no returned calls,which really pisses me off!!!!
Self regulation is being pushed across the trade which will not stop the dodgy tradies .
The Royal Commision should directed at lazy fuckers who's job is to ensure that no dodgy shit is going on....jeez I could go on and list all kinds of shocking complacent crap that goes unchecked,oh hang on I just did.
Cheers....spog....


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (23/3/14)

But the onus is for Joe Public to check there tradies licence. Thats what we get told. But as you pointed out...who does.

I have had a full comms licence for 20yrs...no one has ever asked. Not even come close. 

But they write the legaslation so that its not up to the government to police it, its up to you and me to check Bob the tradie's licence and report accordingly. And make Bob legally resposible to his workers. Thats why when Bob ends up in court cause Jim the labourer died the first thing he will get accused of is breaking the law because he didnt provide a safe work environment.


----------



## wynnum1 (24/3/14)

Home insulation 'Mr Fluffy' Testing had found amosite asbestos, the most deadly form of the building material

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/mr-fluffy-house-sealed-after-asbestos-found-20140314-34so5.html#ixzz2wp1yhdKX


----------



## Dave70 (24/3/14)

It's always got me stuffed how the thrust of the whole scheme was to save an estimated *20,000 gigawatt-hours (72,000 TJ) of electricity and 25 petajoules (6.9×109 kWh) of natural gas by 2015 (wiki)* based on some shaky estimates, so in a nutshell, all about consuming less power - using less fossil fuel and so on, right?
Why wouldn't a government with such a green environmental bent not do everything in its power to encourage use of the biggest mixed blessing we have, sunlight. Why would you roll back schemes and rebates that encourage people to bolt as many solar panels and water heaters as possible to their roofs? Windmills? Get em in there. Who knows, perhaps even help get local production of the requisite technologies up and running rather than import panels and transformers by the container load. Just imagine actually, like, 'making stuff'. Yeah, we can do it. 


Perhaps Garret was made the fall guy in all of this, with friends psychopaths like K Rudd, that's only to be expected, but bugger him. 
He's an rabid leftist and I always hated Midnight Oil anyway.


----------



## wynnum1 (24/3/14)

Why would they buy Chinese insulation when fiber glass is made from recycled glass bottles .


----------



## Dave70 (24/3/14)

wynnum1 said:


> Why would they buy Chinese insulation when fiber glass is made from recycled glass bottles .


Same reason they buy recycled iron ore, coal and limestone from China in the form of structural steel.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/3/14)

Dave70 said:


> Why wouldn't a government with such a green environmental bent not do everything in its power to encourage use of the biggest mixed blessing we have, sunlight. Why would you roll back schemes and rebates that encourage people to bolt as many solar panels and water heaters as possible to their roofs? Windmills? Get em in there. Who knows, perhaps even help get local production of the requisite technologies up and running rather than import panels and transformers by the container load. Just imagine actually, like, 'making stuff'. Yeah, we can do it.


well we wont see much or any of that with the current gov. Abbott is a climate change denier.... and has cut schemes to do with green renewable power....


----------



## Dave70 (24/3/14)

Is he actually an _anthropogenic_ climate change denier or calls bulllshit on the whole scientific consensus of climate change? 

I realize dragging his religious convictions into the spotlight sounds like picking the low hanging fruit, but lets face it, he has form relating to issues directly at odds with his faith. 
Cant help but feel anything 'science says' may be antagonize him a touch.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/3/14)

Mm...he isnt one much for science, or so it seems. He has cut a few "science" related groups and cut into the CSIRO. I think he is on the side of the fence of those that may not believe that man has had an influence on the climate over the last few hundred years. He is a god botherer, but I think he has enough political sense not to let that influence him to to much in the public eye.


----------



## spog (24/3/14)

Dave70 said:


> It's always got me stuffed how the thrust of the whole scheme was to save an estimated *20,000 gigawatt-hours (72,000 TJ) of electricity and 25 petajoules (6.9×109 kWh) of natural gas by 2015 (wiki)* based on some shaky estimates, so in a nutshell, all about consuming less power - using less fossil fuel and so on, right?
> Why wouldn't a government with such a green environmental bent not do everything in its power to encourage use of the biggest mixed blessing we have, sunlight. Why would you roll back schemes and rebates that encourage people to bolt as many solar panels and water heaters as possible to their roofs? Windmills? Get em in there. Who knows, perhaps even help get local production of the requisite technologies up and running rather than import panels and transformers by the container load. Just imagine actually, like, 'making stuff'. Yeah, we can do it.
> 
> 
> ...


Correct me if I am wrong,but is Oz not the driest inhabited continent on the planet,and south Oz the driest state ?.
Yet here the law states that if you build a new house you must have a minimum 1000 litre rainwater tank and that water is non potable,
Meaning it has to be plumbed into the house and used for flushing the dunny,not for drinking filling the kettle etc.
The government rebate on these jokes of rainwater tanks is gone,but 1000 litres?
And recently some half sucked off pollie raised the suggestion of taxing people for the amount of rainwater collect,FFS.
But I guess it's on the cards seeing that solar panels have a separate meter measuring the power generated and the existing meter measuring the usage.


----------



## browndog (24/3/14)

spog said:


> Correct me if I am wrong,but is Oz not the driest inhabited continent on the planet,and south Oz the driest state ?.
> Yet here the law states that if you build a new house you must have a minimum 1000 litre rainwater tank and that water is non potable,
> Meaning it has to be plumbed into the house and used for flushing the dunny,not for drinking filling the kettle etc.
> The government rebate on these jokes of rainwater tanks is gone,but 1000 litres?
> ...


Somebody may be able to confirm/refute this, but I believe they can tax a farmer on the amount of water the dams on his property collect.


----------



## spog (24/3/14)

browndog said:


> Somebody may be able to confirm/refute this, but I believe they can tax a farmer on the amount of water the dams on his property collect.


Correct,I reckon this is happening in the Adelaide hills,farmers collecting the storm water runoff from roads ( not sealed or curbed) and being charged for it.
As one bloke on the radio said,"how can the government charge farmers for what god gives,perhaps the government can get together with the insurance company's and tell us all who god is and wether or not all things can be blamed on him."
There was silence on the radio for a short while,one of the radio guests was a pollie.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/3/14)

browndog said:


> Somebody may be able to confirm/refute this, but I believe they can tax a farmer on the amount of water the dams on his property collect.


In NSW there is (basically) a licence on the size of the dam you can have on your property. The licence depends on a few factors. It relates to the size of your property, the rainfall band it falls in, the size of the dam and if it is within a direct water course. They dont care if the dam is full or empty. Most farm dams do not require a licence. Its only when a dam is built that is of a size within a rainfall band that can affect flow into rivers and creeks that you need a licence

There is no "tax" on the amount of water, well not in NSW. ( Maybe in the the great state of QLD...but **** knows what strange things go on up in that great state )

I have a few mates that work in the lands dept and the way it is worked out is very sensible. You can look up the nsw lands website and get all the info you need


----------



## shaunous (25/3/14)

Government has to take some blame.

U cant blame the employer wholey, it wasnt just one or 2, its was thousands of 'employers' rorting this system, how could the system be rorted to easily, by lack of governance.


----------



## shaunous (25/3/14)

browndog said:


> Somebody may be able to confirm/refute this, but I believe they can tax a farmer on the amount of water the dams on his property collect.


I was waiting for this to come out.

Thats how it works, you dont have to become a conspiracy theorist for that one.

1. Government hands out rebate
2. Government sits tiddling thumbs for some time untill the plebs have forgotten about it
3. Government taxes said item and makes money plus more out of the original rebate they offered.

Win Win.


----------



## Dave70 (25/3/14)

browndog said:


> Somebody may be able to confirm/refute this, but I believe they can tax a farmer on the amount of water the dams on his property collect.


My folks property backs onto a dam that adjoins several other property's. If you want to irrigate from it, (and a couple do - market gardeners) you need to have a permit. Which don't come for free. 

Their holiday house at Yamba has a jetty out the front. About 4m x 2m. It costs in the order of $500 per year to have it. If you don't want it, they'll pull it down and restore the bank at your expense. 
Oddly, strip of land between the house and river is public right of way, the jetty however is private. Problem is, I guess, if the jetty was no longer yours, it would be the responsibility of the council, who would now have to maintain it. Which would cost money. Principally in the form of a yearly going over with a paint brush and a pail of Taubmans. Outrageously expensive by any measure. 
So obviously, it would be better to rip it down and have no one enjoy it.


----------



## shaunous (25/3/14)

Dave70 said:


> My folks property backs onto a dam that adjoins several other property's. If you want to irrigate from it, (and a couple do - market gardeners) you need to have a permit. Which don't come for free.
> 
> Their holiday house at Yamba has a jetty out the front. About 4m x 2m. It costs in the order of $500 per year to have it. If you don't want it, they'll pull it down and restore the bank at your expense.
> Oddly, strip of land between the house and river is public right of way, the jetty however is private. Problem is, I guess, if the jetty was no longer yours, it would be the responsibility of the council, who would now have to maintain it. Which would cost money. Principally in the form of a yearly going over with a paint brush and a pail of Taubmans. Outrageously expensive by any measure.
> So obviously, it would be better to rip it down and have no one enjoy it.


That council pays my wages, so hold up there big fella :lol:


----------



## Dave70 (25/3/14)

shaunous said:


> That council pays my wages, so hold up there big fella :lol:


Interested in time sharing a jetty on the Clarence River? 

It's got a sink and rod holders.


----------



## spog (25/3/14)

Dave70 said:


> Interested in time sharing a jetty on the Clarence River?
> 
> It's got a sink and rod holders.


Run out a power lead for a beer fridge and bingo,prime water front real estate


----------



## shaunous (25/3/14)

Dave70 said:


> Interested in time sharing a jetty on the Clarence River?
> 
> It's got a sink and rod holders.


Im not a big fan of Yamba mate. So i'll leave this to someone else who'd appreciate it more :lol: Never have been, probably never will. I go to the place once a year for the wifes 1st cousins memorial surf race. That's it.

http://jacoblollbackday.com.au/


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/3/14)

With you there on Yamba...nice...but....yeah..

I like Illuka...but you need a packed lunch to get there....


----------



## shaunous (25/3/14)

I can honestly say I've never been to Iluka. Pretty bad for a Grafton boy.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/3/14)

You havnt missed anything.....its like Coutts...but with water..


----------



## shaunous (25/3/14)

Haha, surely it cant be as good as Coutts can it? :lol:


----------



## wide eyed and legless (28/3/14)

shaunous said:


> I was waiting for this to come out.
> 
> Thats how it works, you dont have to become a conspiracy theorist for that one.
> 
> ...


For that reason I never claimed a rebate and plumbed my tanks in myself all 12 of them, I just think that the council may use Google Earth to catch any water tanks not on their list if they do want to claim a rate or tax
The tax office in the U.K. employ readers for used car sales to catch the back yarders.


----------



## Greg.L (28/3/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> In NSW there is (basically) a licence on the size of the dam you can have on your property. The licence depends on a few factors. It relates to the size of your property, the rainfall band it falls in, the size of the dam and if it is within a direct water course. They dont care if the dam is full or empty. Most farm dams do not require a licence. Its only when a dam is built that is of a size within a rainfall band that can affect flow into rivers and creeks that you need a licence
> 
> There is no "tax" on the amount of water, well not in NSW. ( Maybe in the the great state of QLD...but **** knows what strange things go on up in that great state )
> 
> I have a few mates that work in the lands dept and the way it is worked out is very sensible. You can look up the nsw lands website and get all the info you need


I've just applied for a new dam. Because I already have dams to the limit of my harvestable right, I need a permit for a new dam, the charge for the application is $1300. I can do this because I have a water extraction license for my creek, I pay about $100 a year for license fees. Without the license I wouldn't be able to build the new dam (legally) because I wouldn't have rights to the water. In effect I have to pay for the water in my dam, but only because it is more than my normal water harvesting rights.


----------



## TidalPete (28/3/14)

Hey OP,

Just found this thread.



> And its was the state governments that where in charge of licencing,safety and regulations under state based OHwS laws. The feds funded it...but they where not responsible for the state based laws that where broken in the first place. If the states did there job, no one would have been killed.


Whilst I have the utmost sympathy for those poor sods who lost their lives (And for those whose homes were lost) in the implementation of this rushed scheme don't you think that the person employing them is to blame for not giving them proper training in the first place before running for the money at full speed?

I fail to see how K. Rudd can be held responsible for the training of those at the pointy end of the scheme when the role of a PM (Any PM) is above such mundane matters & point you to Stu's quote above & the posts of many others.

I see NO reason at all to have an inquiry into this other than for the political purposes that are obviously obvious to anyone unless of course, the posters are related to our currant headkicker PM or just don't know any better? 

Some selective minds conveniently forget how Australia survived the GFC in great shape. 

I'm rather regretful that I've been sucked into a political thread & would love to have an AHB where politics & political threads get the arse quick smart.

Just (Politely) saying. :beer:


----------



## wide eyed and legless (28/3/14)

Some selective minds conveniently forget how Australia survived the GFC in great shape. 

I haven't forgotten we were hanging on to the shirt tails of China.


----------



## TidalPete (28/3/14)

As were others we&l.
Looks like your eyes aren't so wide open after all? 

Please give me a list (From No1 down) of countries who best survived the GFC. :beer:


----------



## wide eyed and legless (28/3/14)

When GFC hit, China went into a keep everyone working mode by infrastructure, they were building things they didn't even need, of course Australia was still providing all the resources that China needed that is what saved us from feeling the full effect of the GFC nothing to do with Kevin Rudd blowing money on stupid schemes which hadn't had any forethought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZewnCkJsJY


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (28/3/14)

Consumption was the reason we did so well in the gfc. China's need to produce the world's goods. Australian coal,iron ore,Wheat. 
Same can be said for Canada.
Most other countries on the list are value adding and trading goods sold to us (and the rest of the world). 
Interesting is the addition of New Zealand I'm shore many people in Nz wouldn't agree they came though unscathed.


----------



## TidalPete (28/3/14)

Yeh whatever we&l
Whatever you say mate but still haven't heard from the OP re his original post?

Silly enough to get involved in a political thread after a beer or two but not too silly to give it the arse right now. :lol:

Sharks are sharks are sharks are sharks whatever their colour or persuasion & I repeat my words above -------------- 

*I would love to have an AHB where politics & political threads get the arse quick smart.*


----------



## wide eyed and legless (28/3/14)

Strangely Scooby, Brazil isn't mentioned in that list. Being a supplier to China as we are I would have thought that they should have been nearer the top.
TidalPete, though your political beliefs are different to mine, its your call and I respect that, if we all thought and voted the same we would be living in a shit world.


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (28/3/14)

From what I've read Brazils consumption to export ratio is to high. 
As well the infrastructure and general efficiency of they're exports is lacking. 
Geographical location plays a role as well.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (28/3/14)

We talked about this before in the politics thread. At the time the home insulation scheme employed a shitload of people, the shit kicking dole bludging type of people (many of whom I knew at the time) who if hey weren't employed by this, would have been straight to the dole queue getting paid to do nothing at all. The very fact that these people had extra cash to burn, and aren't the 'saving' type, meant that every dollar they were paid was instantly recycled into the service industries, stimulating the economy, and yielding GST for the state govs.

A side issue (but related) was the BER program. I work for a small-mid size engineering firm, and for a couple of years there a good portion (maybe 10%) of our work was for national buildplan. So that program was employing everyone from labourers, through to trades, to surveyors, engineers, architects directly, and as a result, they spent it on services, and didn't default on their ******* mortgages. The economy was stimulated. 

I'm not trying to say that the stimulus measures saved the day, but they definitely made a marked difference, over many sectors, and QUICKLY. 

The numbskulls who stapled foil sheets to live 240v cables, well that's Darwinism in action isn't it. People die every day for doing stupid shit and we don't blame the government.


----------



## spog (28/3/14)

Have to agree with your last sentence.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (28/3/14)

I agree with you Liam but stimulus doesn't fix a problem, it is just a band aid, America is abandoning its stimulus program now, the reason why is it doesn't show any long term benefit.
Governments have got to get the economies moving but at their own pace we can't force economies to pick up.
As for the unfortunate deaths, they were youngsters, when I think back on some of the things I did as a teenager I think I am lucky to still be here. As was said in earlier posts no training was given, responsibility for human lives have to be borne all the way down the line.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (28/3/14)

I agree with you and your bandaid analogy. You put it on ASAP, then take it off once it stops bleeding. I also did heaps of shit which could have killed me when I was younger, that's part of the deal right?

Edit: plenty of the stupid shit I did was on job sites. Would it be the PM, the federal minister for infrastructure, the housing minister, the BSA, the foreman, the contractor, or myself who would be responsible for shooting myself with a nail gun or severing a limb with a circular? Same shit.


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (28/3/14)

2006;



2014;

Liam I agree as well,to use the band-aid analogy. It's like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. The use of stimulus packages was mainly physiological no real long term good was achieved.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (28/3/14)

What you're saying is that we would have been better to have dealt with a higher unemployment rate at the time and the the run on consequences of that, than to have more national debt right now. Yeah?


----------



## browndog (28/3/14)

Liam_snorkel said:


> We talked about this before in the politics thread. At the time the home insulation scheme employed a shitload of people, the shit kicking dole bludging type of people (many of whom I knew at the time) who if hey weren't employed by this, would have been straight to the dole queue getting paid to do nothing at all. The very fact that these people had extra cash to burn, and aren't the 'saving' type, meant that every dollar they were paid was instantly recycled into the service industries, stimulating the economy, and yielding GST for the state govs.
> 
> A side issue (but related) was the BER program. I work for a small-mid size engineering firm, and for a couple of years there a good portion (maybe 10%) of our work was for national buildplan. So that program was employing everyone from labourers, through to trades, to surveyors, engineers, architects directly, and as a result, they spent it on services, and didn't default on their ******* mortgages. The economy was stimulated.
> 
> ...


I had a young mate that died at work, I take offense at your last sentence.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (28/3/14)

I'm sorry but you missed my point. I had a mate who drove a car into a tree.


----------



## browndog (28/3/14)

Flippant comment.


----------



## TidalPete (28/3/14)

> I would love to have an AHB where politics & political threads get the* arse *quick smart.


Maybe you've missed the last bit of my last post above Tony>?
But just in case you haven't good luck to you mate.

Edit ----- Please note the absence of Americanisms in this post.


----------



## Greg.L (29/3/14)

The stimulus definitely saved our economy from the GFC. If consumers had stopped spending our economy would have tanked, stimulus didn't work in the US because the real estate market crashed. The reserve bank raised interest rates to cool our realestate market a couple of years earlier, thankfully. Chinese demand for coal and iron ore wouldn't have saved jobs in Sydney and Melbourne We were lucky to have a government that was willing to spend, it's just a pity Labor had so many no-hopers. Mind you the current government don't seem up to much either, they are good at chasing refugees away but not much else.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (29/3/14)

My take on it is that the initial impact was lessened by the stimulus measures and our (compared to US) heavily regulated banking system, and the continued demand from China for energy and our minerals led the recovery.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (29/3/14)

Greg I don't think that consumers had confidence, what was happening over the globe had created the lack of confidence, credit card debt was at its lowest,as was consumer spending, consumers would only buy if it was really necessary, shops and factories were closing down and it isn't much better now.
The reason that the Rudd government could offer the stimulus was because the Howard government had left the economy in such a strong position.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/3/14)

And the reasom Howard left it in strong shape qas due to the Hawk/Keating reforms......and selling off assests to make the books look good.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (29/3/14)

Easy to make the books look good during an unprecedented mining boom. Tax cuts for everyone! Having a baby? Here have some money! Woohoo this is gonna last foreverrrr!


----------



## Liam_snorkel (29/3/14)

Have another baby while you're at it and here's some more cash!


----------



## Greg.L (29/3/14)

The Howard gvt's big spending on family payments is now causing big problems for Abbott, Howard had a lot of luck with the mining boom. Now they have no way of reducing pensions and family payments without causing a political headache.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/3/14)

Abbott has been handed a poisond challice


----------



## Liam_snorkel (29/3/14)

I don't think he would mind being seen as the tough guy, seems to be a strong character. 
Rudd/Gillard didn't have the guts or inclination to cut family payments.


----------



## Greg.L (29/3/14)

If you think bullies are strong, then yes Abbott is strong. I don't think he has the bottle to take on the pensioners and middle class mums.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (29/3/14)

Yeah I didn't necessarily mean "good" strong.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/3/14)

He sort of stabbed himself in the hand with the $75,000 paid parental scheme.


----------



## manticle (29/3/14)

Shot himself in the tits.


----------



## browndog (29/3/14)

TidalPete said:


> Maybe you've missed the last bit of my last post above Tony>?
> But just in case you haven't good luck to you mate.
> 
> Edit ----- Please note the absence of Americanisms in this post.


All good Pete, I just thought Liam's comment was a bit callous in respect to four guys going to work and not coming home.


----------



## Lemon (29/3/14)

There have been some good points made re the responsibility for the sad deaths in the workplace carrying out the work from this scheme.
However,
Under all workplace safety laws, irrespective of harmonisation, any injury at work is a breach under the act. Section 19 (from recollection, may be wrong). This is the employer's (PCBU) responsibility.
So, in my opinion, the scheme may have been misguided, badly led, poorly implemented, whatever..... The employer is responsible for providing a safe place of work, and safe systems of work. 
They didn't. 

Lemon


----------



## wynnum1 (30/3/14)

Who are the PCBU elected persons are not and are not workers. What role did unions have in ensuring training and safety . The workplace health and safety laws very poorly written and if a worker or other person has a problem what process to rectify .The whistle blower is the first to be persecuted.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (30/3/14)

The PCBU ( persons conducting business or undertaking ) are the persons or business owners who employ the workers. Unions have no direct role in safety and training and are not responsible. The unions role is advocacy for the workers. They provide advice and support. The unions can bring up issues but they have no legal standing within the legislation.

I would disagree the tha laws are poorly written. If you read the laws they plainly make the employer responsible. It may be written in legal jargon, but that doesnt mean its poorly written.


----------



## Greg.L (1/4/14)

I was at the barber today and read the Telegraph, the report on the royal commission was a small column on page 11, so Sir Tony won't be happy with that. The report wasn't even particularly critical, the guy in charge of the scheme said they didn't want to rule out foil insulation because they wanted to create as many jobs as possible.

The Editorial column was all about how we can't afford the NDIS, so my guess is the budget will drop that scheme, a lot of people won't be happy if that is the case. According to the tele, gonski, NDIS and social security are all Labor's fault so it won't be Sir Tony's fault if they can't balance the budget, even though he knew all that stuff was coming when he made the balanced budget promise.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (1/4/14)

I bet the $75k paid parental scheme stays...


----------



## Liam_snorkel (1/4/14)

it won't but I hope it does, as clumsy as it was, he had a point about women of calibre.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (1/4/14)

Liam_snorkel said:


> it won't but I hope it does, as clumsy as it was, he had a point about women of calibre.


Which is prob why only 1 is in his cabinet...

Maybe they should be at home having babies and looking after them as their husbands trott off to work at 7am

Mike Walsh....your hour of need has come


----------



## browndog (1/4/14)

Greg.L said:


> I was at the barber today and read the Telegraph, the report on the royal commission was a small column on page 11, so Sir Tony won't be happy with that. The report wasn't even particularly critical, the guy in charge of the scheme said they didn't want to rule out foil insulation because they wanted to create as many jobs as possible.
> 
> The Editorial column was all about how we can't afford the NDIS, so my guess is the budget will drop that scheme, a lot of people won't be happy if that is the case. According to the tele, gonski, NDIS and social security are all Labor's fault so it won't be Sir Tony's fault if they can't balance the budget, even though he knew all that stuff was coming when he made the balanced budget promise.


So if the get rid of the NDIS I guess they will roll back the increase in the medicare levy right?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (1/4/14)

browndog said:


> So if the get rid of the NDIS I guess they will roll back the increase in the medicare levy right?


NDIS should be seperate. Medicare levy is NOT THAT BIG. 

Considering that you can go to hospital and get treated for no cost, regardless of who you are is one of Australia's greatest things. Many people dont respect that untill they need to go to hospitall. And our hospital system is very very good.

Go to the USA and see the difference.

If I had the choice of paying a bit more in medicare I would take it. NO ARGUMENTS. But only in return that ALL the medicare levy was spent on public health.


----------



## shaunous (1/4/14)

True that Stu..

Medicare levy is pissweak.


He has one woman in his cabinet, who gives a rats.


Does anyone else wanna just punch Penny Wong in the mouth???


----------



## Liam_snorkel (1/4/14)

Just you mate.


----------



## shaunous (1/4/14)

I used to think you were cool Liam.


----------



## spog (1/4/14)

shaunous said:


> True that Stu..
> 
> Medicare levy is pissweak.
> 
> ...


Yeah me.She always has an in your face ,I am right your not,surly ,shut up attitude, demeanour .


----------



## manticle (1/4/14)

As opposed to 80% of other politicians (from both sides) who are never smug, arrogant or dismissive?

Abbot, Howard, Rudd, Keating, Bishop, Vanstone, Brandis? All good listeners? All willing to accept constructive criticism?

I wanna punch them all in the chops.


----------



## shaunous (1/4/14)

Howard was and is 'Tha Man'. If he could scull a beer like Bob Hawk I'd have his babies...


----------



## goomboogo (1/4/14)

shaunous said:


> Howard was and is 'Tha Man'. If he could scull a beer like Bob Hawk I'd have his babies...


What do you consider his greatest achievement whilst holding public office?


----------



## shaunous (1/4/14)

Wearing Aussie Tracksuits on his morning walks I'd say.


----------



## goomboogo (1/4/14)

shaunous said:


> Wearing Aussie Tracksuits on his morning walks I'd say.


I agree.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (1/4/14)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGqTayhu5QM


----------



## Liam_snorkel (1/4/14)

I love this one, still relevant. The member for Bennelong was John Howard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc96KVsTKtY


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (1/4/14)

shaunous said:


> Wearing South Sydney Tracksuits on his morning walks I'd say.


I fckn wish


----------



## wally (2/4/14)

manticle said:


> As opposed to 80% of other politicians (from both sides) who are never smug, arrogant or dismissive?
> 
> Abbot, Howard, Rudd, Keating, Bishop, Vanstone, Brandis? All good listeners? All willing to accept constructive criticism?
> 
> I wanna punch them all in the chops.


You neglected to include Pyne.


----------



## manticle (2/4/14)

When you talk about politicians, you're bound to forget one or two self serving, whiny, arrogant cockboxes.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (2/4/14)

Who wouldn't want to smash Kevin Rudd in the face?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (2/4/14)

I want to smash Pyne first


----------



## manticle (2/4/14)

Use Pyne to smash rudd.


----------



## Feldon (2/9/14)

FYI

The final report of the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program was made public yesterday.

PDF is available from a link on the commission's home page at: http://www.homeinsulationroyalcommission.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (2/9/14)

Well that was a fun read


----------



## TheBlackAdder (2/9/14)

The whole home insulation debacle has always confused me - political point scoring at its best

Why labor didnt straight away condemn dodgy bosses and move to introduce industrial manslaughter I'll be damned.

On top of that, Ive heard that the per-installation fatality rate didnt really change during the scheme, simply that there was a fuckload of installing happening.

Like if everyone went for a drive on the same day - the number of crashes will be 10x yesterday, but thats only because 10x more people are on the road...


----------



## wombil (2/9/14)

Well if you read all that Stu,My hat is off to you.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (2/9/14)

I did skip 1 or 2 pages..

But the whole gist of it was....dodgy installers after financial gain damaged the reputation of the insulation industry in general..

As has been said earlier, it wasnt the the governments fault that they guys died, it was dodgy installers cutting corners.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (2/9/14)

But was it the governments fault that so many dodgy installers got involved in the industry?


----------



## Liam_snorkel (2/9/14)

Yep, they were the cause, although workplace training, health & safety are state government issues. I think the phrase is when the shit hits the fan, everyone wears a bit.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (2/9/14)

I think the government ministers were standing on the second row


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (2/9/14)

Its kind of funny that the LNP has not been able to score any political points out of the witch hunt...

Its a kind of " What was the point" in having the inquiry when everyone knew the result...

Pretty much a waste of tax payers money considering we are in a "budget emergency"..... -_-


----------

