As stated previously:
STRUCTURE – It would be best if the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety and the sub-department of Building and Energy worked in collaboration with the Building Industry.
BUILDING COMMISSION ETHIC and MODUS OPERNADI – The current modus operandi at the BC is to take an adversarial approach to Builders and building trades. This approach by the BC is counter-productive. The BC is currently structured to work more as a dictatorial office that dishes out punitive edicts that damage builders rather than a constructive body that fosters professionalism and positive outcomes for all parties. An alternative would be for a statutory body to be made up of members of the Building Industry.
Building Professionals at the B & E
An ex-police officer’s perception of a builder can be likened to an orderly’s view of a surgeon. The AMA realise that, the Department of Building and Energy don’t.
With building industry workers at the DMIRS Building and Energy Department builders would not be charged with ludicrous and trumped up charges like using site scaffold erected by a licensed scaffolder and not using using a portable ladder in accordance with Worksafe requirements.
There are few building experienced personnel at the BC.
The BSB meet once a month for a meet and greet and a tick and flick of matters that need a signature. Of the 8 members 2 have a building background. One is a nominated supervisor, I wonder if she attends all sites daily?
Many others come from the WA Police force and know little about building, the admin staff come from other Government Departments and know less.
Looking Forward to the day when the Building Commission employs staff from the Industry who know what they are talking about and work with the Industry instead of against it for personal gain.
The Rule of Law: its State of Health in Australia
The Hon Kevin Lindgren AM, QC*
It is universally agreed that the rule of law is a worthy ideal that must be treasured and preserved – at least until it becomes inconvenient!
Yet, there is not universal agreement as to what “the rule of law” means.
The expression signifies not a legal rule, but more generally rule by “law” as distinct from rule by power, free of legal constraint, whether by a democratically elected government, a tyrant or otherwise. So, the ideal signifies that the institutions of the state, and in particular, the individuals and bodies that are invested with power by the state, should be subject to the law rather than above it.
There are narrow and broad meanings of the rule of law. According to the narrow meaning, the rule of law is not concerned with whether a law is good or bad, but only with whether the law is applied equally to all.
According to the broader meaning, the ideal embraces human rights standards. On any reckoning, both the rule of law and human rights standards should be respected, observed and protected. The only question is the semantic one of whether we properly treat the former concept as encompassing the latter.
Even if we treat them as distinct, a violation of human rights will often involve a failure to observe the rule of law – and vice versa. It is difficult to keep them separate. If for no reasons other than time and space, I have, by and large, adopted the narrow meaning in this paper, but inevitably I have at times discussed human rights as well.
Model Litigant Rules.
Dealing with claims promptly; (7 years later is not prompt)
Making an early assessment of the government’s prospects of success; (7 years is not early)
Not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks resources; (the Commissioner’s code is not law so legal counsel is not available)
And one last word in the meantime: