A Typical Story
No customer complaint, no faulty or unsatisfactory workmanship, no law broken just a BC staff member taking a pop shot.
I recall starting work listening to and learning from the old timers. They had all been in one of the World Wars. Something that fascinated me was the ambidextrous trades men. Apparently before WW2 they weren’t allowed to be left handed.
Much the same as the BC’s expert saying A Nominated Supervisor should carry a ladder at all times irrespective of when scaffold is on the job. Electronic devices should not be used and a part time job should be full time. No concept of Commercial Realities although I could understand a government worker taking a week to do a fair day’s work for a week’s salary?
Why Presumption of Innocence is good for us.
On the presumption of innocence hang the protections which a person should have no matter the person’s status, religion, or citizenship. The protections from being coerced to give testimony, to incriminate oneself, to have one’s case heard in open court, to have legal counsel, to have one’s sentence pronounced publicly, to present evidence in one’s defence and to conduct a vigorous, thorough defence.
The resources of the police, in time and financial resources, far exceed those of most of us. Most of us in our lives will be subject to a charge, even as minor as speeding 10 kilometers above the speed limit. We know the feeling of helplessness when charged and facing the police. In the battle which follows either to prove innocence or establishing mitigating factors, the battle is considerably fairer and just if the police have the burden of proving their case.
It would be unfair and unjust if an Australian soldier who is charged with committing an offence in Afghanistan seven years ago had to prove that they did not do so. Proof might involve collecting evidence in Afghanistan and bringing witnesses to Australia. How would this be possible for the ordinary individual? Placing the onus on the prosecution is reasonable and fair. This is what is meant by having to prove the negative that is on some occasions an impossible task.
Freedom of Speech is in the Australian Constitution.
You are free to express your concerns about the Government without fear of retribution.
The Law applies to everyone.
No one is above the law not even the Queen of England.
Following my previous stand on truth, justice and the Rule of Law the officer from the Building Commission alleged a breach of the Commissioner’s Code had been comitted by me in 2014. 7 years later they had a Kangaroo Court ritual at the SAT and found me guilty of something. I don’t know what as no law was broken and they never said? Contrary to the Australian Constitution. In fact you couldn’t get anything more Un-Australian than the Building Commission.
When I left the company I did a handover with the new supervisor and there was no faulty or unsatisfactotry work and everything was being attended to. I sent 33 emails to the BC in order to have my name removed from the Builder’s Register but the BC allowed the company to continue trading without a Nominated Supervisor for 5 months when problems arose.
No facts or findings were ever made by the Building Commission against me merely they thought something may have happened to someone at some time when I worked there. The SAT had to agree it was likely.
The manufacture of offences to get a prosecution may enhance an employees job prospects but the harm to the Building Industry and the general public must also be considered. Under the Australian Constitution without a causal link no one can be held responsible for events of the future. Even climate change can’t be just one person.
The accused simply wasn’t there years later regardless of the desired outcome of the Building Commission.
There was no breach of the Constitution by the Defense but the Prosecution had many.
A fraud case arose years later and was settled in the Supreme Court ***********
It took 7 years to bring this matter to trial.
The Constitution states fair and prompt trials but then again it also says people can only be punished in accordance with the law.
Even the State Legislation states:
A breach of a Commissioner code or a Commissioner standard
(as those terms are defined in the Building Services (Complaint
Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 section 95) does not of
itself constitute a disciplinary matter.
Any Legislation can only require a result to be achieved in an agreed time frame. Legislation cannot say how that is to be achieved.
All industries and professions work differently. What works for one may not work for another. Different companies work differently depending on the type of work, location and volume etc.
The Building Commission saying the riding of a bike is a breach of the Commissioner Code is rediculous but typical.
The private sector attacks problems, the Public Sector attacks people. An “Exit Interview” conducted by the Building Commission would prevent most of the silly time consuming cases escalating. To not act on over 30 emails and allowing the company to trade for 5 months without a nominated supervisor in order to get a career enhancing prosecution is irresponsible.
The funds should be restricted to real cases only irrespective of anual budget audits.
This is an excellent example of a Government thinking they can work as efficiently as the private sector.
They can never compete as they didn’t learn from experience.
Sure they could imagine what they would have done had they taken up manufacturing as their chosen profession but they didn’t, they chose the administration of others.
They were a very authoritarian regime.
It wouldn’t matter who gave evidence, they would never be experts.
The Building Commission hasn’t earned the right to an opinion on Project Building in WA.
Those that can do do, those that can’t obstruct.
It’s interesting how someone can build for 40 years handing over thousands of successful projects winning dozens of awards, being praised by clients and trades but not liked by the Building Commission for taking a stance on truth, justice and the Rule of Law. I suppose that’s why I was chosen to judge the Homes of the Year Awards and not the BC expert, he wouldn’t have a clue, building is not his subject.
If you feel that you haven’t been treated fairly as the Constitution intended give us a call.
Ensuring the Building Commission and the SAT adhere to the Australian Constitution. It’s what Australians fought two world wars for.
Peace, Democracy and Freedom so don’t let anyone take that away from you.
READ ON click here ➔