Good bye...

See ya, Kev!

It's about bloody time.

Don't let that door hit you on the bum on the way out.

Good riddance.


Till next time...

"F" for FAIL...

Indonesia submitted you to a pop quiz, and you failed.

The boat was in Indonesian waters.  The boat wasn't in Australian waters, and the boat wasn't even in International waters, so why did the Australian's even "rescue" it?

This was a classic example of Indonesia flexing their muscle, and you've let them.  

Shame on you.

Why are you even letting Indonesia make the refugee's that are leaving FROM THEIR COUNTRY our problem?

They are living in Indonesia at the moment, so isn't it Indonesia's problem?

How are you going to stop the rest of them from coming now?  You've just proved that you're nothing but hot air and hope.

Till next time...

A typical subcontractor in the residential sector....

So, we have a house to finish and it's almost done.  We've sent the requisite notice to the clients advising them of the date they can inspect the completed works and pay us our final progress claim.

All that's left to do is some external painting.

The painters were supposed to be there on Friday.  They weren't.  The head guy was "sick".

They were supposed to be there on Monday.  They weren't.  The head guy's "car broke down".

Phone calls go unanswered and so do text messages and emails.

The painters were supposed to be there this morning.  They're not.

Again, phone calls go unanswered and so do text messages.

I eventually get in touch with the head guy.  Lovely man - really.  Lovely family, too.  Heart of gold but unorganised to the extreme.

He confesses that he has no money to buy the rest of the paint he needs to finish my job, so he's had to contract himself out at day labour just to bring in some quick cash to buy the paint he needs for my job.

WHAT THE HELL?

I don't get how these people run businesses!?!?

OK...I understand that someone passes you a bum cheque and you were counting on it to pay your own suppliers and because of that you become temporarily stuck.  But all my painter needed was $1000.  That's it.  Just $1000.

Surely, surely these "businesses" have some sort of float they can dip in to?  I don't understand how they can't have one.

So, he's delayed the completion of his work on my house for 4 days because of $1000.

Bless him - he was too embarrassed to tell me the real reason for not showing up, and he was worried that if he asked for a 'start' I may think that he was trying to shaft me (ie: take the money and never show up again - a practice rife in this segment of the industry), but still, we all have a job to complete and it needs to be completed.  It's that simple.

Subbies - please become better business people, and please learn to open your mouth and say something if you have problems.  There are some builders out there who aren't your enemy.


Till next time...

The proposed SOPA changes...

A Summary of the proposed SOPA changes:

Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Amendment Bill 2013 – Summary of changes

1.    Prompt payment provisions.

These amendments will not apply to a residential construction contract that is connected with the main contract. Exception does not apply to other work that may be described as residential e.g. high rise apartments and other commercial developments.

Proposed s11(1):

·               A progress payment to be made under a construction contract is payable in accordance with the applicable terms of the contract.

Proposed s11(1A):

·               A progress payment to be made by a principal to a head contractor becomes due and payable on the date occurring 15 business days after a payment claim is made.

Proposed s11(1B):

·               A progress payment to be made to a subcontractor becomes due and payable on the date occurring 30 business days after a payment claim is made.

Proposed s11(1C):

·               The existing due and payable provisions for construction contracts connected to an exempt residential contract are retained.

Proposed s11(8)

·               Any provision in a construction contract that provides for payment of a progress payment later than the periods stipulated in s11(1A) and s11(1B) are void.

2.    Removal of existing requirement under s13(2)(c) for a statement that a payment claim is made under the Act.

   

3.    Requirement for a payment claim to be accompanied by a supporting claim.

Proposed s13(7):

·               A payment claim submitted by a head contractor to a principal must attach a declaration that all subcontractors and suppliers have been paid all amounts that have become due and payable in relation to the construction work concerned.

Maximum penalty: $22 000

Proposed s13(8):

·               To serve a supporting statement with knowledge that it is false or misleading in a material particular is an offence.

Maximum penalty: $22 000 or 3 months imprisonment or both

4.    Investigation of compliance with provisions regarding supporting statements

Proposed s36 to s36B:

·               Appointed authorised officers (public service employees) may require a head contractor or associated persons to provide information or documents relating to compliance with the new provisions of s13 regarding supporting statements.

Maximum penalty: $22 000 or 3 months imprisonment or both

Not happy, Jan.

Till next time....

Yet another step in the road...

...toward a Nanny State?
...toward total Government involvement?
...toward being completely, totally, utterly restrained that you just can't do business anymore?

When, oh when, will the Government just F* off out of our businesses and let us get on with the job?

I've received this today from a construction solicitor and I'm not impressed in the slightest.

MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL PLANNED FOR THE NSW CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

On 30 October 2013 the New South Wales Legislative Assembly passed the first of a number of proposed amendments to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (“Security of Payment Act”)  that will change the construction legal landscape in New South Wales for many years to come.

All that is required now is the bill’s passage through the Legislative Council for the amendment to become law.

In Australia, the Security of Payment legislation exists in some form or another in all States and Territories. The Security of Payment legislation typically governs the contractual relationships of principals (developers), head contractors (builders) and subcontractors.  

The effect of the existing Security of Payment legislation is to override the contractual relations of the players in the construction process. The existing legislation provides a statutory process to circumvent the agreed contractual clauses to determine the amounts due to a claimant for construction work performed by it. The system is far from perfect and provides little more than rough justice to the parties to resolve disputes concerning payment.

Subcontractors are the main users of the Security of Payment legislation. Head contractors do not often use the powers against principals.

No other industry in Australia has such legislative interference in its commercial relationships.

In 2012 the Collins enquiry, headed by Bruce Collins QC, looked into insolvency in the construction industry and made various recommendations to the Government. (This was at approximately the same time as the Reed Constructions Pty Limited insolvency which involved major government contracts). These recommendations are now being enacted in response to the growing number of insolvencies of major head contractors and the knock on effect to subcontractors.  The bill creates yet more legislation reflective of the Queensland legal and regulatory regimes governing its construction industry.  This is in stark contrast to American politics and its swing towards reduced government involvement.  

The new legislative amendment represents a dramatic first “phase” of changes to further limit the way parties contract in commercial construction contracts and residential subcontracts.

Whilst the Minister for Finance and Services, Mr Andrew Constance, admitted in the second reading of the bill that “the majority of the industry does the right thing” the majority of head contractors must by this proposed bill bear yet another burden created by a few.

The proposed amendments dictate when progress payments must be made under head contracts and subcontracts despite what the parties might otherwise agree. This change reflects the Security of Payment legislation (and other legislation) in Queensland. In another section the proposed amendment changes the form in which payments claims are made. The result will be that every demand by subcontractors for payment (whether by letter of invoice) from head contractors will now require a special statutory response, which if missed becomes an automatic debt due to the subcontractor regardless of the work done and its true value.

Australian head contractors and subcontractors have never seen legislation like this.

The amendments further require that a head contractor attach to its own payment claims a declaration (referred to as a “supporting statement”) that all subcontractors and suppliers have been paid all amounts that have become due and payable in relation to the construction work concerned. If they do not, a maximum penalty of $22,000 applies. Further, if a head contractor serves a supporting statement with knowledge that it is false or misleading it will be an offence with a maximum penalty $22,000 or 3 months imprisonment or both.

On major constructions sites a head contractor will manage up to 70 subcontractors, consultants and suppliers to complete the works and each may make monthly or even weekly claims. During the course of any project, thousands of requests for payment will be made. The management of that process created by these proposed laws could have extraordinary consequences if the head contractor’s statement is in error.

Finally, the Government may (by these amendments) appoint public servants who can require a head contractor to provide information and all documents relating to compliance with the new provisions regarding supporting statements. Failure to comply with the requirements of such a notice may result in a maximum penalty of $22,000 or 3 months imprisonment or both.

In this instance the Government’s first legislative phase (as it puts it) comes at a high cost to the majority of the head contractors that do the right thing. The bill represents just the beginning of a legislative and regulatory regime to change the way construction takes place in the State of New South Wales.

The major builders will cope with this proposed legislation and the costs will be passed to principals. The costs will be substantial to ensure compliance, however, it is the mid-tier head contractor that will be forced to increase its administrative workload to accommodate the proposed changes. The bottom of the construction market will ignore the law. As always it’s not about creating yet more laws that will be ignored but about enforcement against those few bad apples.

In the meantime our economy which is highly dependent on new housing starts and capital expenditure for growth staggers on. If construction is the engine room of the State then the drivers of that engine are its builders. These builders continue to have their contractual rights restrained and if all the recommendations are enacted, they will within a short time, be operating under even stricter laws and controls. No doubt the other States and Territories will be looking on to see how the New South Wales economy performs if the bill is passed what affect it will have on its builders. 

You know what effect this will have?  It will screw us even more and screw our cashflow even more.

Have you ever stopped to think about how much the subcontractors actually screw over the builders with dodgy and inflated progress claims?  As it is we've got nothing in the way of protection against that.  The SOPA essentially states that we have to pay their full claim and then fight it out in court!  If that's how it has to be managed then why even have the SOPA in the first place?

Government....Please understand this.....All you manage to do is screw things up!  

GO AWAY!  YOU ARE NOT WANTED IN OUR BUSINESSES AND YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN OUR BUSINESSES. 

I have not even started on this particular topic yet.  Stay tuned...


Till next time...

The people have spoken...

mandate

noun

ˈmandeɪt/

1. 1.

   an official order or commission to do something.

   "a mandate to seek the release of political prisoners"

   • 
     

     
     
   • 
     
   • 
     

     
     

     
     
2. 2.

   the authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election.

   "he called an election to seek a mandate for his policies"

   • 
     

     
     

     
     

verb

manˈdeɪt/

1. 1.

   give (someone) authority to act in a certain way.

   "the rightful king was mandated and sanctioned by God"

   • 
     

     
     
2. 2.

   historical

   (of territory) be assigned to (another power) under a mandate of the League of Nations.

   "mandated territories"

During the 1998 election the Liberal's campaigned on their GST policy and won the election.  The GST was implemented (with just a bit of negotiation with Meg Lee's of the Senate) with the legislation passing through both houses.

During the 2007 election Kevin '07 campaigned against the Liberal's WorkChoices policy and won the election.  Labor immediately set about dismantling the WorkChoices legislation and the legislation to do so passed through both houses (noteworthy here that Liberals did not oppose the legislation).

During the 2013 election the Liberal's campaigned against the Carbon Tax and won the election.

In all three elections the victor had received a clear mandate from the electorate.  There can be no confusion and no misunderstanding on this.

Labour did the right thing and allowed the passage of the GST legislation through the houses and the Liberals did the honourable thing and allowed the passage of the legislation to dismantle WorkChoices through the houses.

So right now I simply can't fathom how Labor can not recognise the clear mandate that Liberal has received from the election to dump the Carbon Tax. 

It is beyond rude.  It is beyond arrogant and it is just very, very poor form to say the least.  I just don't have the words to express my disbelief at this latest little sooky-la-la behaviour from the Labor party.

Tony Abbot's campaign was so clear - he was going to dump the tax.  It was his mantra every single day - day in and day out of the election campaign.  At every single opportunity it was his catchphrase.  He did have 3 or 4 other key platforms that he campaigned upon - and he can rightfully consider that he has a mandate for those also.

So Labor, you need to "man up", accept your punishment (ie: the mandate from the electorate) and let the Liberal's get on with the job.  If you want to sook and carry on, do it behind closed doors where we can't see it.


Till next time...