I have no problem with this, as long as it is not done to pay...

I have no problem with this, as long as it is not done to pay lip service to these things. From the announcement it is impossible to judge whether this is conducted with a checklist mentality or in an attempt to actually achieve best practice. If it is the former, your comment might be justified, but if it is the latter, I think it is not.

I believe Leighton Holdings changed its name after it became tarnished with corruption, so while it is a "soft" issue, I actually think "culture" is incredibly important. In contrast I believe a "she'll be right" attitude and not asking the difficult questions is asking for trouble and eventual value destruction.

Also, any engineering contractor will tell you that it is their safety culture that gives them a ticket to play - i.e. without a demonstrated good safety culture, the large mining companies would not give them any work.

Workers do die working in unsafe environments. I doubt family and friends of workers who died would have the same reaction to yours and describe an endeavor to minimize the change for corruption and unsafe work practices as "the lunatics running the asylum".

Also, it is good to see that contracts are not awarded purely based on price. The reason I invest in RCR is because I believe the company has excellent engineering capability and a superior safety culture, which in combination constitute part of RCR's competitive advantage.

Good to see that Melbourne Water seems to think the same.