BPB plans to nail the new and aspiring Council-accredited employees in 2013
- Details
- Published on Thursday, 25 August 2011 13:35
It would have been unrealistic to assume that the relatively benign process established by the BPB to accredit council employees would continue forever. It would also be unrealistic to expect that the zealots on the BPB might contemplate how the accreditation of council employees process has gone, whether it has added value to the quality of development control and the construction of buildings, or whether it has been largely irrelevant, before they went any further.
But no. The BPB remains committed to rolling new council employees, or employees trying to upgrade their category of accreditation, over to exactly the same qualification and experience requirements as private certifiers.
This, despite the industry having told them for years that while private certifiers do certifying full-time, council employees do many, many other things. While requirements for someone doing something full-time may need to be rigorous because if they don't do anything else they don't need training or qualifications in those other areas, forcing that degree of rigour onto someone who does it only for part of the job, makes no sense.
As part of our regular meetings with the BPB, CEO Neil Cocks warned us prior to our last meeting on 25 July that the Board was interested in feedback on the Board's proposals for new accredited certifiers in councils and those upgrading their category of accreditation.
Please note, existing employees not wanting to upgrade their the level of accreditation will not be affected.
They also wanted some feedback on increasing CPD requirements after 2013 to bring them into line with the 30 hour requirements per annum for private certifiers. We think that’s fine because the Award ensures you get paid for it and it will make it easier to get progression in the salary system because of this more intense skills training.
Clearly Neil is a big tease because when we went met with them on 25 July and provided feedback that this would just be another nail in the coffin of building control by council employees, BPB Chair Sue Holliday said the Board was committed to it and going to do it anyway. So there.
Maybe only Neil and the silent members of the Board wanted the feedback.
Nice of them to ask.
This issue falls within the ambit of the EP&A Act Review and we have already made our views known there. So should you.
Robbo's Pearls...


Go to jail Meredith!
The High Court on Thursday 3 May hammered the final damning nails into the disgraced corporate reputations of seven James Hardie Board members. The Court unanimously held that the seven non-executive directors had breached their duty to act with care and diligence by approving the release of a statement to the stock exchange in 2001 which misled the market about the company's funding of its workers’ compensation liability. The Court overturned a decision of the NSW Court of Appeal which had let the disgraced directors off the hook.
These people are all corporate bluebloods, previously respected by business, government and the market. They are now disgraced and, trying to cut a complicated story short, the Court also referred back to the NSW Court of Appeal the consideration of penalties including disqualification. The High Court makes it abundantly clear that the Board knew the foundation was underfunded and had specifically developed a strategy to restrict news to the finance pages and their narrow sectional interests rather than provide it generally as news.
James Hardie has killed more Australian workers than most. While Australian workers will continue to die for decades from contact with their products, the damage is not just restricted to anyone employed by them but they've also killed kids, wives, family and friends who came in contact with the dangerous asbestos fibres - fibres known to be dangerous when mined in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire.
Companies manufacturing asbestos sheeting in our lifetime preferred to employ older workers. They believe this managed their financial liability because mesothelioma symptoms take a long time to appear and if they employed older blokes they are more likely to have retired and die before the asbestos gets them.
It is now up to the NSW Court of Appeal to review punishments. Not being able to operate as a company director again is the least of it and the original fines of $35,000 each for these seven should have a series of zeros added.
More is the pity that these are not criminal offences and this lot of miscreants won't end up in jail. It is a pity too that we still don't use the stocks because it would be fitting for the seven executives, and especially ex Chairman (sic) of the Board Hellicar, to spend a few weeks in the stocks in Martin Place so that we can all tell them what we think.
While the High Court has nailed these people for endorsing a misleading media release about the underfunding of their liability, there are many implicated in the approval of the NSW Government for Hardy to restructure and move its centre to the Netherlands as part of a process of trying to quarantine their asbestos liability.
Amongst other things, 80 blueblood respectable people of wealth, privilege and reputation provided character statements in support of Hellicar when first prosecuted. I'm going to publish who those people are.
As the Chair of the Investment Committee of LGS I attended the annual conference of the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors in Melbourne in 2004. The guilty Hellicar participated in a panel about corporate behaviour. She was politely asked a question about the recently announced NSW Government investigation of the underfunding of their liability and she told a packed hall of institutional investors that the company had done nothing wrong and that all would be proven. We suspected it was a lie then and we know it is a lie now and I will always regret I didn't boo and heckle this disgraceful performance.
But no one else did anything either. Institutional investors in Melbourne are all very polite and wouldn’t want to frighten the companies Australian superannuation funds invest in. Even those killing Australians, deliberately underfunding their liability for compensation and misleading the market and everyone else about it.
Maybe it's time to do some frightening.
News articles archive 2011
On 13 October 2010 lawyers acting for Wagga Wagga builder Peter Hurst advised the Council that he would apologise to council staff for his discredited allegations. He then changed his mind without explanation and we have been waiting 588 days for the apology.
View the full article in depaNews November 2010: Developer agrees to apologise in long-running Wagga Wagga unpleasantness


