Is Rudd the Mayor West of the World?

I know you will not. You seem not to understand what those terms actually mean.

 

I cited an article that stated they are state regulations, not federal regulations. I don't think i need to find each state regulation for two reasons:
1. It demolishes the argument that federal Labor is somehow responsible for inadequate regulations
2. Considering the above, why?

Also, i don't know if you read either citation i provided, but one showed that 2(?) of the deaths had nothing to do with the insulation scheme per se, except that they were in the roof installing insulation at the time. One was an employee not following instructions the other was electrocuted because some cowboy electrician from the past left a death-trap behind. So while one death is terrible, when will you stop with this Liberal party funded* absurd campaign of yours.

*i have no idea if you're funded in anyway by the Liberal party.

 

OMG what is wrong with you? Seriously, it's extremely clear:

Duties of persons conducting businesses or undertakings

It's in the document YOU quoted over and over again. What else could it possible mean? In your brain does that translate to:

the Federal Labor party of Australia ? How?!

 

I love your signature. But what's this Ashes game thing?

- - - Updated - - -

Did they already have one?

 

Were? I see not cited article....

What are the regulations? You claim you cited then, and were? Point to them out please.

Why what? why are they liable??? As stated, read the legislation.

What are you on? It was not an insulation scheme they were just installing insulation paid for by the insulation scheme...

God are you serious??? Do people really have to explain that this is a major problem for the government??? One was not following instructions??? The entire WH&S policy is to insure that people do follow instruction, that all parties involved are responsible for people following instructions and insuring a SAFE work environment. The legislation does not say that everybody has a duty of care unless someone dies from not doing as they are told... Read the legislation clown and stop pretending there is some out here for anybody who has anything to do with this.

Of course you do not, it is simply your way to flamebait the debate to something you think you understand. BUT YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT.

 

Let me put it as simply as possible for you... What term would you use for the government in the insulation scheme??? Now if you say they are the party initiating the UNDERTAKING full marks, but I am sure you will attempt to find some squirming room there

Darn right it does, the government intimated the scheme, the government funded the scheme and the government employed the businesses to action the scheme. So the Government is the principle antagonist of the UNDERTAKING. How do you exonerate them from being the principle of the scheme???

OMG, knowing how to read legislation might actually help you to understand the terms involved.

 

Interesting. You don't read contributions before you retort?
http://www.politicalforum.com/austr...6-rudd-mayor-west-world-3.html#post1062917400

I did. Not all of it, and i counted about 20 instances of "Duties of persons conducting businesses or undertakings" and not one mention of Federal Government liability that i saw. Perhaps you can point me to that bit.

And if you were to drive off a newly resurfaced road, whose fault would that be and would it be BECAUSE the road was resurfaced? The government paid for it, therefor THEY must be responsible. The company that built a defective road (assuming you weren't just a bad driver, as you are a debater) is not to blame of course, it's the government!

You haven't read what i cited so probably know nothing more than the very brief explanation i gave. Give your argument some chance by reading the counter points presented.

That's exactly the point. THE LEGISLATION EXISTS - YOU QUOTED IT and it frequently outlines the responsibilities of BUSINESS. You're now so twisted you're attacking your own arguments.

 

Oh right. So the businesses being sued whilst the government is not being sued somehow suggests that all the lawyers in town back your expert legislative interpretation. Tell me, what do you do again?

Honestly, i can see how you might read it that way, but apparently the lawyers out there haven't. This is a country where a dude took the government to the highest court regarding religious education in school being funded by a secular government. Don't you think a couple of deaths might lead to some action?

Read the articles i've twice presented. Post the Coroners report if you wish, i have not read it and as it hasn't been presented to date i'm assuming no one else here has either.

 

Read them. Where are the regulations??? ALL the articles discuss is the duty of care under the WH&S Legislations... SO what are the roof insulation regulations??? Please point to them...

I will at the bottom of the page where you so clearly demonstrate you actually have no comprehension of what the legislation is saying.

Before you attempt to make analogies perhaps you should understand the terminology in the legislation. ONLY THEN, can you make correct analogy. As this is totally irrelevant to the argument you are making.

Again, GOD ARE YOU SERIOUS??? You really consider that people should be excused for not insuring safety measures are adhered to under their duty of care because they did not do as they were told???

Yes, Understand this terminology,

"A person conducting a business or undertaking must ensure" This term means A PERSON CONDUCTING A BUSINESS OR A PERSON CONDUCTING AN UNDERTAKING MUST ENSURE.

How about this

"Duty of persons conducting businesses or undertakings involving management or control of workplaces" MEANS A PERSON CONDUCTING A BUSINESS OR A PERSON CONDUCTING AN UNDERTAKING INVOLVING MANAGEMENT OR CONTROL OF WORK PLACES.

Like I mean, do you understand what the statements actually are??? They talk directed at everybody involved to ensure safe work practices are provided and adhered too Form the absolute creator of the enterprise no matter if they are a business or an entity that initiates the enterprise to the lowest worker.

So the legislation outlines that anybody who has control of any aspect of the operation from the principle to the least member of the team has a duty of care to ensure safe work practices are adhered to. NOT JUST BUSINESS BUT ANYBODY WHO IS INVOLVED.

 

Don't talk too loudly, you might end up with egg on your face. Business has not been sued, so apparently your presumption of what has occurred is also incorrect.

Perhaps you could explain exactly how long that case TOOK to get to court??? Perhaps you could consider for one minute that your comments about the legal system is vastly out of ignorance for its working speed

Read them? You proclaimed they suggest or state the state legislation for roof insulation regulations. They do not, they point directly at the WH&S legislations and regulations but nothing of the roof insulation regulations you proclaim to be in place, which to this point there are none. So, point to the state or federal regulations that are in place, for the correct and legal instillation of roof insulation as you proclaimed to have been in place.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ebacle-revisited/story-fn6tcxar-1226693140523

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/05/insulation-fitters-compensation-rudd-apology

How does that egg taste??? As stated, don't talk too soon...