Commissioner Dyson Heydon not qualified to speak on safety, says construction union
December 31, 2015 1:00am
Renee ViellarisThe Courier-Mail


THE construction union has accused Dyson Heydon of putting workers’ lives at risk and described his biggest on-the-job risk as “a paper cut or indigestion after a big lunch”.   :(

CFMEU national construction secretary Dave Noonan yesterday accused the Royal Commissioner into Trade Union Governance and Corruption of watering down safety for blue-collar workers.

Unions and the Opposition described Justice Heydon’s findings as tainted, while employer groups egged on the Turnbull Government to take a broom to the union movement.



Malcolm Turnbull goaded Opposition Leader Bill Shorten into supporting the recommendations and reforms, warning he would make them an election issue.

One recommendation includes changes to right-of-entry laws, which allow union officials to enter worksites during suspected safety breaches. Mr Noonan said such changes would be bad for workers.   :(



“(Dyson Heydon) has never worked on a building site, wouldn’t know safety if he fell over it,” Mr Noonan said. “The most serious risk he faces at work is a paper cut or indigestion after a big lunch.”

Opposition workplace relations spokesman Brendan O’Connor yesterday reminded the public that Justice Heydon agreed to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser.

“Dyson Heydon, the man responsible to preside over this royal commission, accepted, while he was commissioner, an invitation to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser so money could be raised for the political party of the Government,” he said.
CFMEU national construction secretary Dave Noonan says the Commissioner “wouldn’t know safety if he fell over it”.

ACTU secretary Dave Oliver said he rejected “any assertion that there is unlawful, corrupt conduct in our unions”. He said Justice Heydon’s assertion that “thugs and bullies” were welcome at trade unions proved he was biased.   :(

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said the findings showed “the case for change to the laws governing trade unions and related entities is irrefutable”.

Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry spokesman Nick Behrens said the findings warranted an urgent response from the Palaszczuk Government.

oh god yet he is allowed to preside over  a work safety case...and tell the unions it was the companies fault and they can pay zillions in compo.... ::) ::) ::) of course.


geeeeees...


what does Billy dumbnuts say???

smell the fear in the unions!  their dirty dealings are becoming public and they do not like it.

the commissioner would know more about safety than any of these clowns.

Dave Noonan doesn't seem to have OH&S in his CV either.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 1:48pm:

Dave Noonan doesn't seem to have OH&S in his CV either.

Probably the reason that he hasn't released a 4000 page report with sections likely to be devastating to industry safety.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:38am:

smell the fear in the unions!  their dirty dealings are becoming public and they do not like it. the commissioner would know more about safety than any of these clowns.

What a silly thing to say, can't support this opinion ?

Commissioner Not Qualified To Speak

.. fixed.. that'll be $1500 a day pro rata for consultation....

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:38am:

smell the fear in the unions!  their dirty dealings are becoming public and they do not like it. the commissioner would know more about safety than any of these clowns.

the commissioners area of expertise is in the law, not OH&S. What he knows about OH&S is about the same as what you know on it.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 2:33pm:

lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 1:48pm: Dave Noonan doesn't seem to have OH&S in his CV either. Probably the reason that he hasn't released a 4000 page report with sections likely to be devastating to industry safety.

but he feels qualified to comment?

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 2:59pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 2:33pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 1:48pm: Dave Noonan doesn't seem to have OH&S in his CV either. Probably the reason that he hasn't released a 4000 page report with sections likely to be devastating to industry safety. but he feels qualified to comment?

everyone can comment  ... especially if it's THEIR safety that's on the line

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 2:59pm:

everyone can comment  ... especially if it's THEIR safety that's on the line

Dave Noonan is a full time office wonker. Hardly HIS safety.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 3:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 2:59pm: everyone can comment  ... especially if it's THEIR safety that's on the line Dave Noonan is a full time office wonker. Hardly HIS safety.

EVERYONE can comment on OH&S .... or do you think OH&S isn't an issue if you work in an office?

Quote:

Commissioner Not Qualified To Speak On Safety

Commissioner is well Qualified To Speak at liberal party fund raising.

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 2:59pm:

lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 2:59pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 2:33pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 1:48pm: Dave Noonan doesn't seem to have OH&S in his CV either. Probably the reason that he hasn't released a 4000 page report with sections likely to be devastating to industry safety. but he feels qualified to comment? everyone can comment  ... especially if it's THEIR safety that's on the line

No in cases where it is your safety on the line you are obliged to speak, failing to do so can result in a $4,000 fine. He may have saved himself some money.

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 3:13pm:

lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 3:08pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 2:59pm: everyone can comment  ... especially if it's THEIR safety that's on the line Dave Noonan is a full time office wonker. Hardly HIS safety. EVERYONE can comment on OH&S .... or do you think OH&S isn't an issue if you work in an office?

Therefore Heydon can comment on OH&S. But neither are qualified.

Quote:

One recommendation includes changes to right-of-entry laws, which allow union officials to enter worksites during suspected safety breaches. Mr Noonan said such changes would be bad for workers.

I wonder how employers would feel if they had OH&S inspectors doing safety audits of their workplaces whenever there's a suspected breach of safety rules? They also have right of entry, and are generally much tougher on safety breaches than union inspectors.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 4:57pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 3:13pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 3:08pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 2:59pm: everyone can comment  ... especially if it's THEIR safety that's on the line Dave Noonan is a full time office wonker. Hardly HIS safety. EVERYONE can comment on OH&S .... or do you think OH&S isn't an issue if you work in an office? Therefore Heydon can comment on OH&S. But neither are qualified.

Heydon can comment on any OH&S issues in his workplace ... he's certainly not qualified to comment on the runnings on on a building site or a mine

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 4:57pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 3:13pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 3:08pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 2:59pm: everyone can comment  ... especially if it's THEIR safety that's on the line Dave Noonan is a full time office wonker. Hardly HIS safety. EVERYONE can comment on OH&S .... or do you think OH&S isn't an issue if you work in an office? Therefore Heydon can comment on OH&S. But neither are qualified.

I don't know that making probably unsafe political recommendations as a commissioner in a report is the same thing as making a comment?

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:54pm:

Heydon can comment on any OH&S issues in his workplace ... he's certainly not qualified to comment on the runnings on on a building site or a mine

And as I pointed out, according to his CV - neither is Dave Noonan.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 7:54pm: Heydon can comment on any OH&S issues in his workplace ... he's certainly not qualified to comment on the runnings on on a building site or a mine And as I pointed out, according to his CV - neither is Dave Noonan.

actually, I think he is

Dave has worked for the union for over 25 years. Prior to becoming National Secretary in 2006, he was an organiser and industrial advocate with the CFMEU Victorian Branch, and its antecedent the Building Workers’ Industrial Union (BWIU). Prior to becoming a union official, Dave was a construction worker

he started as a construction worker and then spent the next 25 yrs looking after union members and their safety in the construction industry ... not sure how much experience you want someone to have in a particular field before you call them 'qualified', but for me, 25+ yrs makes him abundantly qualified.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:39pm:

I don't know that making probably unsafe political recommendations as a commissioner in a report is the same thing as making a comment?

What are "probably unsafe political recommendations"? Ones that impact on one political party? Is a union a political party?

If you are talking about potentially unsafe legislation, that is a different matter.

I would think that would be handled the Commonwealth Solicitor General. That's why we have them.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:01pm:

What are "probably unsafe political recommendations"?

ones that are likely to have an undue influence on those that get to make the laws .... you'll have anti union MP's citing the commissioners recommendations for the next 3 years, and idiots like cods and armpit believing them just because 'the commissioner' said so..

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:59pm:

Dave has worked for the union for over 25 years. Prior to becoming National Secretary in 2006, he was an organiser and industrial advocate with the CFMEU Victorian Branch, and its antecedent the Building Workers’ Industrial Union (BWIU). Prior to becoming a union official, Dave was a construction worker he started as a construction worker and then spent the next 25 yrs looking after union members and their safety in the construction industry ... not sure how much experience you want someone to have in a particular field before you call them 'qualified', but for me, 25+ yrs makes him abundantly qualified.

Nope. There are specific requirements for OH&S. 25 years service just doesn't cut it.

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:05pm:

lee wrote Today at 9:01pm: What are "probably unsafe political recommendations"? ones that are likely to have an undue influence on those that get to make the laws

Why would that make them "politically unsafe"?

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:25pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 8:59pm: Dave has worked for the union for over 25 years. Prior to becoming National Secretary in 2006, he was an organiser and industrial advocate with the CFMEU Victorian Branch, and its antecedent the Building Workers’ Industrial Union (BWIU). Prior to becoming a union official, Dave was a construction worker he started as a construction worker and then spent the next 25 yrs looking after union members and their safety in the construction industry ... not sure how much experience you want someone to have in a particular field before you call them 'qualified', but for me, 25+ yrs makes him abundantly qualified. Nope. There are specific requirements for OH&S. 25 years service just doesn't cut it.

And a 6 month tafe course does or even the glorified 4 year uni version of the six month tafe course does ? I assure you on the job experience counts for everything , I work in the industry and you my friend have no furkn idea what you're talking about. Do you think a fresh out tafe uni student much less that furkwit heydon is going to know what I am talking about when I say come and check the outriggers on the franna?

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 9:05pm: lee wrote Today at 9:01pm: What are "probably unsafe political recommendations"? ones that are likely to have an undue influence on those that get to make the laws Why would that make them "politically unsafe"?

.. because it places in their hands a 'validation' for what they already want to do.... and thus obviates the democratic process...

You need to catch up - read my assertion on the vast differences between legislation, law and Law....

It is not merely sufficient for an elected body to vote by majority on an issue - the content of that issue must itself pass the test of Law Itself, and the test of Common Justice......

When WILL you all learn?  The NAZIs and Stalinists teach you nothing about legislation and Legality?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:37pm:

It is not merely sufficient for an elected body to vote by majority on an issue - the content of that issue must itself pass the test of Law Itself, and the test of Common Justice......

And that is the preserve of the Commonwealth Solicitor General.

Its time wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:37pm:

And a 6 month tafe course does or even the glorified 4 year uni version of the six month tafe course does ? I assure you on the job experience counts for everything , I work in the industry and you my friend have no furkn idea what you're talking about. Do you think a fresh out tafe uni student much less that furkwit heydon is going to know what I am talking about when I say come and check the outriggers on the franna?

Correct - on the job training is important. Now who has the job? Dave with a few years experience but NO qualifications, or the newly minted OH&S bloke with no experience? Think about it.

Of course the best solution is Dave with a few years experience AND an OH&S qualification.

And you really have no idea of my life experiences.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:42pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 9:37pm: It is not merely sufficient for an elected body to vote by majority on an issue - the content of that issue must itself pass the test of Law Itself, and the test of Common Justice...... And that is the preserve of the Commonwealth Solicitor General.

Who singularly fails to even suggest that a piece of mooted legislation is suspect, and merely suggests that the government rely on the utter inability of the common person to challenge any such legislation.

You mistake the game of power for the game of reason, decency, justice and Law.

You will not even get a challenge into the appropriate court for under around a quarter of a million... how does Joe or Jo Bloggs challenge legislation?  At the ballot box - where both parties battle for their own version of the same thing, as long as it suits them and not Jo and Joe?

EVERY piece of legislation must be open to challenge for a nominal fee of $25... by any person adversely affected by it.  It is no longer sufficient, based on historical failure of courts, to rely on a court to overturn illegal/UnLawful legislation... or to rely on the forces of law to refuse to accommodate to it. Indeed, the oath of office of the forces of Law forbids such action... thus we are left with the tenuous and diaphanous proposition that the courts will abide by their oath of office and ensure justice for all equally.

History shows us that is not the case, and that the courts fall mos often into the fallacy that they are bound by the same oath as the forces of Law, and must therefore abide by 'law as written', rather than making a valid and independent judgement on the merits of any piece of legislation.  Courts thus fall into the error of considering themselves one aspect of 'the thin blue line' - rather than as the guardians  of Law (the thin black line) itself.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:54pm:

Who singularly fails to even suggest that a piece of mooted legislation is suspect, and merely suggests that the government rely on the utter inability of the common person to challenge any such legislation.

Perhaps that's part of the reason we have left leaning judges in the higher courts? Appointed by both parties.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:25pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 8:59pm: Dave has worked for the union for over 25 years. Prior to becoming National Secretary in 2006, he was an organiser and industrial advocate with the CFMEU Victorian Branch, and its antecedent the Building Workers’ Industrial Union (BWIU). Prior to becoming a union official, Dave was a construction worker he started as a construction worker and then spent the next 25 yrs looking after union members and their safety in the construction industry ... not sure how much experience you want someone to have in a particular field before you call them 'qualified', but for me, 25+ yrs makes him abundantly qualified. Nope. There are specific requirements for OH&S. 25 years service just doesn't cut it.

he's a tradesman, OH&S forms a part of every trade course. Then you don't think the union would have provided training for their staff? Sorry, but 25 yrs does cut it. And unless you have proof that he has no qualifications, then you cannot say he hasn't met any specific requirements.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:57pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 9:54pm: Who singularly fails to even suggest that a piece of mooted legislation is suspect, and merely suggests that the government rely on the utter inability of the common person to challenge any such legislation. Perhaps that's part of the reason we have left leaning judges in the higher courts? Appointed by both parties.

Which part of significant legislation that revokes or overturns a fundamental Right have these opposed recently?

ONLY in extreme cases such as the Dr Haneef episode - which came about because the forces of Federal law, at the behest of the government, sought to extend the interpretation of what constitutes an act of terrorism - do the high courts ever overturn legislation and send it back for review.

Countless Right-destroying pieces of legislation have passed without comment.... and nobody affected has the wherewithal to challenge the basis of that legislation, especially when anyone disposed to challenge it has already been adversely affected by it, and is thus considered to be beneath consideration, and to be merely an appellant against an already-established end, thus accruing to self limited rights of appeal.

That is the game of power - not the game of Law.

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:58pm:

he's a tradesman, OH&S forms a part of every trade course. Then you don't think the union would have provided training for their staff? Sorry, but 25 yrs does cut it. And unless you have proof that he has no qualifications, then you cannot say he hasn't met any specific requirements.

I did say according to his CV. If he has a qualification and it isn't in his CV, it is hardly my fault.

Every person who goes on site does an induction. That includes some OH&S. It is about personal safety and is NOT a qualification.

Limited OH&S will form part of every tradesman course- it does not necessarily lead to a qualification.

Has the union provided training for staff? Probably some. Does it amount to a qualification or merely how to recognise a dangerous hazard or work practice?

That would probably be dependant on the position. Office staff - probably not. OH&S officer definitely should be a requisite.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 9:58pm: he's a tradesman, OH&S forms a part of every trade course. Then you don't think the union would have provided training for their staff? Sorry, but 25 yrs does cut it. And unless you have proof that he has no qualifications, then you cannot say he hasn't met any specific requirements. I did say according to his CV. If he has a qualification and it isn't in his CV, it is hardly my fault. Every person who goes on site does an induction. That includes some OH&S. It is about personal safety and is NOT a qualification. Limited OH&S will form part of every tradesman course- it does not necessarily lead to a qualification. Has the union provided training for staff? Probably some. Does it amount to a qualification or merely how to recognise a dangerous hazard or work practice? That would probably be dependant on the position. Office staff - probably not. OH&S officer definitely should be a requisite.

you haven't seen his CV .... or if you have you certainly haven't put it up. That extract I dug up (with was all I could find) was not his CV.

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:07pm:

you haven't seen his CV .... or if you have you certainly haven't put it up. That extract I dug up (with was all I could find) was not his CV.

Does his bio from the union show he has OH&S qualifications? Thought not.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:46pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 9:37pm: And a 6 month tafe course does or even the glorified 4 year uni version of the six month tafe course does ? I assure you on the job experience counts for everything , I work in the industry and you my friend have no furkn idea what you're talking about. Do you think a fresh out tafe uni student much less that furkwit heydon is going to know what I am talking about when I say come and check the outriggers on the franna? Correct - on the job training is important. Now who has the job? Dave with a few years experience but NO qualifications, or the newly minted OH&S bloke with no experience? Think about it. Of course the best solution is Dave with a few years experience AND an OH&S qualification. And you really have no idea of my life experiences.

I know you have no idea how the construction/mining industry works , i know this for a fact.

Its time wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:31pm:

I know you have no idea how the construction/mining industry works , i know this for a fact.

Except you know nothing of the sort. you think you know.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 10:07pm: you haven't seen his CV .... or if you have you certainly haven't put it up. That extract I dug up (with was all I could find) was not his CV. Does his bio from the union show he has OH&S qualifications? Thought not.

So you made it up when you said his CV shows no qualifications?

His bio is a publicity stunt and not his CV.

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:49pm:

So you made it up when you said his CV shows no qualifications? His bio is a publicity stunt and not his CV.

I was paraphrasing. Surely you understand paraphrasing? You know backbenchers formulate policy.

Why does he need a publicity stunt for a bio. Something to hide?

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:43pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 10:31pm: I know you have no idea how the construction/mining industry works , i know this for a fact. Except you know nothing of the sort. you think you know.

Oh i know, You would've pulled me up on the little trap i set for you if you knew anything about the industry, Frannas don't have outriggers  ;). You're about as qualified to speak on an industry you have no idea about as Heydon is.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 10:49pm: So you made it up when you said his CV shows no qualifications? His bio is a publicity stunt and not his CV. I was paraphrasing. Surely you understand paraphrasing? You know backbenchers formulate policy. Why does he need a publicity stunt for a bio. Something to hide?

so making things up is now 'paraphrasing'? Ok then  ::) ::) ::)

as for something to hide? no, I doubt it ....  he probably felt he didn't need to give every wanker out there his complete CV. After all, he's not applying for a job

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 10:49pm: So you made it up when you said his CV shows no qualifications? His bio is a publicity stunt and not his CV. I was paraphrasing. Surely you understand paraphrasing? You know backbenchers formulate policy. Why does he need a publicity stunt for a bio. Something to hide?

Really?  I thought we had determined that back benchers only get a minor input to policy, are employed on the basis of their willingness to toe the Party line, and were instructed as to what policy would be by a group called 'caucus'.  Of course, 'caucus' can be an agglomeration of either 'left' or 'right' interests.... but remains the same....... nothing more than a self-appointed group of self-interested individuals or organisations that seek to dominate political discourse in this country (and others) for their own personal advancement, or for the advancement of their cause, or for their own personal advancement dressed up as a 'cause'.  Such a caucus can influence policy as long as it has Power to do so.

On that basis, of course, it remains open for any self-interested individual or organisation to influence and even dictate policy for self-interest - which essentially reduces the entire discussion to one of Power as opposed to Democracy Of The People, By The People and  For The People .......



Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws.

- John Adams.

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 2:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 11:38am: smell the fear in the unions!  their dirty dealings are becoming public and they do not like it. the commissioner would know more about safety than any of these clowns. the commissioners area of expertise is in the law, not OH&S. What he knows about OH&S is about the same as what you know on it.

AND HAS RULED ON OHS MATTERS. this requires him to understand it in excruciating detail

idiot.

Bam wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:46pm:

Quote: One recommendation includes changes to right-of-entry laws, which allow union officials to enter worksites during suspected safety breaches. Mr Noonan said such changes would be bad for workers. I wonder how employers would feel if they had OH&S inspectors doing safety audits of their workplaces whenever there's a suspected breach of safety rules? They also have right of entry, and are generally much tougher on safety breaches than union inspectors.

and you dont think right-of-entry has been abused?

imbecile.

Its time wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:23pm:

Oh i know, You would've pulled me up on the little trap i set for you if you knew anything about the industry, Frannas don't have outriggers  Wink. You're about as qualified to speak on an industry you have no idea about as Heydon is.

You really think I pay close attention to what you say?

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:27am:

so making things up is now 'paraphrasing'? Ok then

hey, it works for you.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 2:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 11:38am: smell the fear in the unions!  their dirty dealings are becoming public and they do not like it. the commissioner would know more about safety than any of these clowns. the commissioners area of expertise is in the law, not OH&S. What he knows about OH&S is about the same as what you know on it. AND HAS RULED ON OHS MATTERS. this requires him to understand it in excruciating detail idiot.

no, it requires him to interpret the legislation, he has no real practicle experience on anything to do with OH&S. There's a big difference between reading a rule that say 'a ladder must lean at no more than 25% of the height of the ladder' and knowing how to place a ladder safely on a work site where there is a lot of rubble and people all over the place..

His job is to interpret the legislation after the fact. The safety officers job is to identify and eliminate hazards before they become a problem. In my opinion a safety officer is immanently more qualified when it comes to OH&S.

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2nd, 2016 at 12:27am: so making things up is now 'paraphrasing'? Ok then hey, it works for you.

you made the claim not me.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:05pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 7:46pm: Quote: One recommendation includes changes to right-of-entry laws, which allow union officials to enter worksites during suspected safety breaches. Mr Noonan said such changes would be bad for workers. I wonder how employers would feel if they had OH&S inspectors doing safety audits of their workplaces whenever there's a suspected breach of safety rules? They also have right of entry, and are generally much tougher on safety breaches than union inspectors. and you dont think right-of-entry has been abused? imbecile.

everything gets abused ... that doesn't mean it doesn't work

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:11pm:

you made the claim not me.

You've made multiple claims without foundation.

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:13pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2nd, 2016 at 4:11pm: you made the claim not me. You've made multiple claims without foundation.

yes ..... and I'm about to make another one

You're a smart cookie aren't you!

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:14pm:

yes ..... and I'm about to make another one You're a smart cookie aren't you!

You finally got one right. The law of averages predicted that.

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2nd, 2016 at 4:14pm: yes ..... and I'm about to make another one You're a smart cookie aren't you! You finally got one right. The law of averages predicted that.

you got one right too ...  it was certainly made without foundation

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:18pm:

you got one right too ...  it was certainly made without foundation

The claim may have been made without foundation. You're right, it is just an accident on your part that it is true.

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2nd, 2016 at 4:18pm: you got one right too ...  it was certainly made without foundation The claim may have been made without foundation. You're right, it is just an accident on your part that it is true.

that's just your opinion ... like it was said, there is no foundation on which one can base that opinion.

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:23pm:

that's just your opinion ... like it was said, there is no foundation on which one can base that opinion.

Yep, and yours doesn't count.

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2nd, 2016 at 4:23pm: that's just your opinion ... like it was said, there is no foundation on which one can base that opinion. Yep, and yours doesn't count.

what makes you think yours does?

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:25pm:

what makes you think yours does?

In the grand scheme of things - no one on these pages has an opinion that counts.

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2nd, 2016 at 4:25pm: what makes you think yours does? In the grand scheme of things - no one on these pages has an opinion that counts.

agree ... so why did you think targeting one above others would help your cause?

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:29pm:

agree ... so why did you think targeting one above others would help your cause?

Sometimes I can't help myself and pick the low hanging fruit. ;)

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:57pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2nd, 2016 at 4:29pm: agree ... so why did you think targeting one above others would help your cause? Sometimes I can't help myself and pick the low hanging fruit. ;)

yes .... I often get told that it hangs rather low

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 5:10pm:

yes .... I often get told that it hangs rather low

Your fruit. Some just say nuts.

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2nd, 2016 at 5:10pm: yes .... I often get told that it hangs rather low Your fruit. Some just say nuts.

the nuts depend on the weather as to how low they go

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2016 at 4:04pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 2:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 11:38am: smell the fear in the unions!  their dirty dealings are becoming public and they do not like it. the commissioner would know more about safety than any of these clowns. the commissioners area of expertise is in the law, not OH&S. What he knows about OH&S is about the same as what you know on it. AND HAS RULED ON OHS MATTERS. this requires him to understand it in excruciating detail idiot. no, it requires him to interpret the legislation, he has no real practicle experience on anything to do with OH&S. There's a big difference between reading a rule that say 'a ladder must lean at no more than 25% of the height of the ladder' and knowing how to place a ladder safely on a work site where there is a lot of rubble and people all over the place.. His job is to interpret the legislation after the fact. The safety officers job is to identify and eliminate hazards before they become a problem. In my opinion a safety officer is immanently more qualified when it comes to OH&S.

so in other words, he knows all the rules and you dont.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:56am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2nd, 2016 at 4:10pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2016 at 4:04pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 2:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 11:38am: smell the fear in the unions!  their dirty dealings are becoming public and they do not like it. the commissioner would know more about safety than any of these clowns. the commissioners area of expertise is in the law, not OH&S. What he knows about OH&S is about the same as what you know on it. AND HAS RULED ON OHS MATTERS. this requires him to understand it in excruciating detail idiot. no, it requires him to interpret the legislation, he has no real practicle experience on anything to do with OH&S. There's a big difference between reading a rule that say 'a ladder must lean at no more than 25% of the height of the ladder' and knowing how to place a ladder safely on a work site where there is a lot of rubble and people all over the place.. His job is to interpret the legislation after the fact. The safety officers job is to identify and eliminate hazards before they become a problem. In my opinion a safety officer is immanently more qualified when it comes to OH&S. so in other words, he knows all the rules and you dont.

no, he knows the rules that are pertinent to the case he is presiding .... it's not difficult really, for someone with at least half a brain. Sadly, even half is more than you seem to possess

John Smith wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 9:27am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:56am: John Smith wrote on Jan 2nd, 2016 at 4:10pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2016 at 4:04pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 2:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 11:38am: smell the fear in the unions!  their dirty dealings are becoming public and they do not like it. the commissioner would know more about safety than any of these clowns. the commissioners area of expertise is in the law, not OH&S. What he knows about OH&S is about the same as what you know on it. AND HAS RULED ON OHS MATTERS. this requires him to understand it in excruciating detail idiot. no, it requires him to interpret the legislation, he has no real practicle experience on anything to do with OH&S. There's a big difference between reading a rule that say 'a ladder must lean at no more than 25% of the height of the ladder' and knowing how to place a ladder safely on a work site where there is a lot of rubble and people all over the place.. His job is to interpret the legislation after the fact. The safety officers job is to identify and eliminate hazards before they become a problem. In my opinion a safety officer is immanently more qualified when it comes to OH&S. so in other words, he knows all the rules and you dont. no, he knows the rules that are pertinent to the case he is presiding .... it's not difficult really, for someone with at least half a brain. Sadly, even half is more than you seem to possess

its so easy that is why he is a former high court JUDGE and you are an unemployed house painter.

white flag accepted looser. ;D ;D ;D

Commissioner Not Qualified To Speak On Safety

Take it easy on the poor old commissioner, it took him 2 weeks to work out if he was a suitable person to be the commissioner on this case or if he should stand down because he had compromised himself.