Kevin Rudd's lawyer says the royal commission into the home insulation scheme has heard no evidence the former prime minister received safety warnings and ignored them.

The inquiry is examining how decisions were made and how warnings were handled before the worksite deaths of four installers in 2009 and 2010.

Lawyer Bret Walker SC has lodged a submission with the inquiry to support the evidence Mr Rudd gave at a Brisbane hearing last month.

It says it has been publicly alleged Mr Rudd received at least 10 direct warnings of safety risks with his government's scheme, and that he ignored them.

But it says some of those claims relate to letters that do not exist, while others relate to safety advice that Mr Rudd accepted.

"No party represented at the commission nor the commission itself suggested, and nor could it reasonably or responsibly be suggested based on the evidence presented to the commission, that the then prime minister failed to respond to direct warnings to him personally about safety risks," the submission said.

"Nor has any party to the commission, nor the commission itself, suggested that the prime minister personally failed to take steps to avoid or prevent the tragic deaths of the four young men who lost their lives while working on the program."

The submission also says no party has contended or produced evidence the program was initiated or designed by Mr Rudd.

The families of killed installers Matthew Fuller and Rueben Barnes have also lodged a submission outlining what they say are the scheme's eight key failures.

They include its design, the scrapping of planned training requirements, a reliance on the states to enforce safety and the use of foil insulation and metal staples in spite of warnings.

They say it is clear public servants did not tell ministers, including Mr Rudd, about safety warnings.

But they say those ministers share blame by not implementing proper reporting protocols.

"The HIP (Home Insulation Program) has caused irreversible detriment to the lives of four families who have unnecessarily lost their loved ones," the submission said.

"In our submission, the Commonwealth Government should consider measures of redress for those impacted by the tragic deaths."

Lawyer Stephen Keim SC has also lodged a submission on behalf of the family of Mitchell Sweeney, who was electrocuted while installing foil insulation in far north Queensland in 2010.

It says the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts "had the means of knowing from almost the beginning of their work" that foil insulation carried unnecessarily high dangers.

"Those warnings were neglected; lost; or channelled into areas where they could have marginal effect," the submission said.

"It may be said that the mistakes that were made by public servants were brought about by the haste with which it was ordained that the HIP was to be rolled out and implemented.

"But another narrative that emerges from the evidence is the failure of senior public servants to call a halt to what must have appeared to most of them as madness.

"No senior public servant advised her political masters that [the start date of] 1 July was both dangerous and untenable."

Over more than seven weeks, the royal commission proceedings in Brisbane heard evidence of communication failures, missed warnings and public servants working under extraordinary pressure.

The commission is due to deliver its findings in August.