In the first instance, this article is prefaced with a description provided by an on-line dictionary to define both a bureaucrat and a bureaucracy so that an immediate understanding is provided to readers as to the severe restrictions and limitations of these functionaries in being able to partake in the process of facilitating the provision and administration of preconstruction termite management provisions and regulations for which they have little, if any, understanding thereof.

Bureaucrat

1.  an official of bureaucracy

2.  an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgement. 

&

Bureaucracy:
	a system of administration based upon organization into bureaus, division of labour, a hierarchy of authority, etc. : designed to dispose of a large body of work in a routine manner
	government by such a system
	government or other officials collectively
	any administration in which action is impeded by unnecessary official procedures and red tape

 

As was discussed in a newspaper article in the Courier Mail and highlighted therein back in 2001, the advice I provided, which was possibly one of the few accurate statements in that article penned by Mr. Hedley Thomas, was the caption therein stating that “I get angry that faceless bureaucrats and associations with vested interests couldn’t give a damn.”

This statement rings as true today as it was when the article was written and further detail on this scurrilous article, including access to the article so as to apprise the reader of the contents therein, is provided with comment thereon!

Bureaucrats administering the Standards and the Building Codes have eroded and denigrated the welfare of ordinary Australian Homeowners by allowing the provisions and regulatory requirements for preconstruction termite management products and systems, as set out in the Standard (AS 3660.1 – 2000) and the Building Code of Australia (BCA), to expand the annotated capacity and efficacy of these products well beyond that which they are able to provide, without respecting the Consumer interest herein.

Recent changes to the upcoming Standard (AS 3660.1 – 2014 Termite management – New Building Work) forced on a recalcitrant and corrupt Standards’ committee (BD-074) by the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) requiring that they remove the word ‘BARRIER’ where it pertained to termite management systems in compliance with a request first provided to Standards Australia representatives in 2007, will assist Homeowners in gaining better understanding of the limitations and fragilities of the products and systems used in preconstruction termite management.

The chairperson of the BD-074 (Dr Don Ewart) was formally advised by TAG, as is recorded in Standards’ minutes (Standard Australia BD-074 Meeting Minutes), that products and systems, including those proprietary systems prescriptively-listed in the Standard, failed a primary tenet of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) Part 1.2 headed ‘Acceptance of Design and Construction’ which requires materials used in a building be fit for the purpose for which they are intended – i.e. They were NOT ‘Termite Barriers’!

Dr Ewart’s advice in a scientific paper to the International Research Group on Wood Protection headed “Managing Termite Risks – An Australian Perspective and a Cautionary Tale” advises in respect of termite barriers being designed to deter concealed access to buildings that “This seems to be an inadequate provision, since it takes a single termite less than a minute to travel from the ground and up the exterior wall to a weep-hole in masonry or some similar entry point”.

A recent article( Dr. Don’s Advice – Pest Manager Magazine ) that featured in the Pest Manager Magazine composed by Dr Ewart very clearly demonstrates his thoughts in relation to having the word ‘BARRIER” removed from the Standards.  The cosy relationship he currently shares with the Australian Environmental Pest Managers’ Association (AEPMA), as the most recognised industry association for pest managers, needs further review.

The advice provided by Dr. Ewart is well-founded given that he has been the R & D Manager and expert court witness for the Granitgard system which has been listed prescriptively in the Standard for the previous 14 years and can also be ‘bridged’ in minutes whilst inspections are generally an annual event.  Granitgard have previously advised that their system DOES NOT require annual inspections to maintain their warranty.  Evidence of this cynical exercise was put to the ACCC with no real action on their part, yet again.

The AEPMA supposedly supports the removal of the word ‘BARRIER’ from the Standard and provided this advice to its members.  However, when TAG addressed the BD-074, of which there were two AEPMA representatives and one AEPMA life member present, these people did NOT support the TAG stance and even joined with the rest of the BD-074 in declaring that the current Standard was ‘TECHNICALLY CORRECT’ in defiance of the view of the vast majority of ordinary AEPMA members who knew this NOT to be the case from practical field experiences!

The AEPMA contracted TAG in 2003-2004 to provide an extensive review of ALL preconstruction termite management systems available in the market place at that time.  A summary of the advice was that there were NO physical systems that were able to be an effective barrier to termites as they were ALL subject to ‘BRIDGING’ and that the best form of defence against termites, at that time, was a treated zone with an appropriate soil medium and chemical application where the construction type allowed for such an installation.

No rational termite technician would disagree with that advice especially given that many homes which had physical termite management systems installed during their construction phase often had chemical installations shortly after occupants moved in and were adversely affected by subsequent ‘bridging’ of these systems.

In having advised Standards Australia about commercial ties of BD-074 members, it was noted that the Consumer Representative on the BD-074 provided services that were remunerated by Granitgard in promoting the product to builders and also tutoring pest managers on application techniques when providing Granitgard installations to new homes.  The MBA representative on the BD-074 at that time was also a licensed installer of the Granitgard product and heavily references the benefits of the product on his commercial website as a former TAG member who left based on his view that physical termite management systems were best practise.

Extensive pecuniary interests of members on the BD-074 cloud their judgement and make it impossible for the committee to provide a just and reasoned performance-based Standard.  Entrenched pecuniary interest has caused the members to fulfil the requirements of their commercial masters in prescriptively listing products and systems in the Standard (AS 3660.1-2000) that were ‘DESIGNED TO FAIL’ or conversely ‘UNABLE TO PERFORM THE FUNCTION FOR THAT WHICH THEY WERE DESIGNED’!

These products and systems were ‘NOT TERMITE BARRIERS’!

This was, in effect, A RECIPE FOR DISASTER!

The allegations of either entirely incompetent and/or corrupt practises that have been undertaken by the BD-074 and AEPMA have previously been made by TAG and is evidenced by the documentation herein.  TAG further provided advice to Standards Australia representatives that the BD-074 was a corrupt and incompetent committee that provided an erroneous Standard (i.e.: AS 3660.1-2000) that prescriptively lists products unable to perform the task for which they were designed in breach of the primary tenet of the BCA –  Section 1.2 Acceptance of Design and Construction / 1.2.1 Suitability of Materials.

The Standard should be a performance-based document that simply provides the necessary achievement levels required for products and systems to be recognised as termite management systems.

Warranties for preconstruction termite management products and systems constructed into the structure of a building NEVER provide any form of warranty for ‘bridging’ of their product or system.  The onus is generally on the Homeowner to prove that ‘breaching’ occurred for which warranty may be claimed dependent on a raft of factors including intrinsic forensic difficulties incurring costs – This all being weighted heavily against Homeowners’ interests!

The initial first draft of the new Standard (i.e. : AS 3660.1-2014) had the word ‘BARRIER’ pertaining to termite management products and systems logged therein on no less than 156 occasions.  TAG provided a submission addressing this nonsense and the ABCB and the Building Codes Committee (BCC) were provided with a copy of the TAG submission sent to Standards Australia and were requested by TAG to act thereon.

Fortunately, the ABCB & the BCC saw sense on this issue and had already drafted a new BCA  (BCA Vol2-PCD_Consolidated read from Section 3.1 onwards), now discussed as a National Construction Code (NCC), which had removed both the words ‘BARRIER & PROTECTION’ from their drafts of the proposed new NCC.  The ABCB & BCC demanded that the Standards committee REMOVE ALL Instances where the word ‘BARRIER’ pertained to termite management systems and products as is noted in the aforementioned Dr Don Ewart’s article in the Pest Manager Magazine ( Dr. Don’s Advice – Pest Manager Magazine  ).

The question for Dr Ewart would be “How can a termite management product or system be a ‘barrier’ to termites when it can be ‘bridged’ in minutes, on your advice, and the inspections are an annual event?”

This barely describes a ‘speed bump’, let alone a barrier!      

The ACCC Letter (ACCC letter to standards Australia) that emanated from TAG’s presentation to the BD-074 in early 2009 and requested in their minutes held 14 questions provided to the ACCC by TAG that have never been answered by either AEPMA or the BD-074.  The contempt shown to Homeowners by ALL parties in this circumstance obviously demonstrated the lack of respect for the rights of Homeowners and the contempt that was held for the ACCC – A toothless tiger.

The advice in the letter from the AEPMA President (Letter from AEPMA President) to a former president of the association demonstrates that the AEPMA had a copy of the ACCC Letter within two weeks of it being provided to the BD-074 and their considerations in defusing the situation are noted therein.  This particularly refers to the fact that the questions provided to the ACCC by TAG were discussed in the letter as being “…carefully worded by the ACCC to elicit either a Yes or No response”.

The cynical advice that he provides pertaining to the removal of the word ‘BARRIER’ (i.e. ensuring a sustainable market share and profitability in this sector of the industry or, insulate members from liability risk.) from the Standard probably provides the low tide mark in the AEPMA deliberations and considerations.

In common parlance, “They didn’t give a ‘rat’s …..’ about the end-user of their services – i.e. The Homeowner!”

It is further interesting to note the role of the CSIRO in all these matters, given that they have slipped away from the circumstance in its entirety!  The CSIRO, via the auspices of the Australian Building Systems Appraisal Council (ABSAC), ran an appraisal service in conjunction with several industry associations and in 1999 this service continued under the sole patronage of the CSIRO.

The CSIRO combined interesting and quirky forms of testing to provide a ‘BARRIER STATUS” for some of the Technical Assessment of these products and systems.  Burying pillows comprising of supposed barrier materials with timber samples therein in termite workings and digging them up at a later date to find the timber samples intact was a case in point.  To reproduce this example in a practical application of such a product would require the entire house to be wrapped in the product with access denied to the Homeowner!

Granitgard had termites directed through a glass tube with timber on the other side.  Clearly, if the glass tube was not there, the termites would simply have climbed straight over the top – i.e. ‘bridged’ the obstruction – and devoured the timber as they do in the real world.

In effect, the testing of the products and systems was performed on an ‘ad infinitum’ basis with controls in place so as to prevent ‘bridging’ whilst practical installations were ‘finite’ with access points causing ‘bridging’ of the product or system and this was able to be achieved in minutes.

The testing conducted by the CSIRO to provide a ‘Barrier Status’ that was bestowed on termite preconstruction termite management products and systems was flawed from the outset.

This was a massive blow to the welfare of ordinary Australian Homeowners!

Discussions held by TAG at that time with various stakeholders identified a situation whereby the CSIRO was encouraged to do joint venture projects in which 70% of the money came from taxpayers whilst 30% came from the private sector.  Clearly the 30% dictated the course in determining preferred status of these products and systems with the flawed testing conferring ‘Barrier Status’ thereon.  This was to have a bad outcome for ordinary Australian Homeowners who were duped into believing they had a barrier against termites entering their homes.

A CSIRO Letter ( CSIRO Report ) responding to TAG queries relating to a host of problems that caused the CSIRO to reassess its Technical Assessments, shortly thereafter to close the scheme entirely and to retreat entirely from the whole subject.  The fact that Mastotermes were found on the Gold Coast – i.e. well below the Tropic of Capricorn and that durability of products and systems was NOT assessed provided the CSIRO with further headaches thereon.

Despite the advice in the CSIRO letter that TAG would be kept informed throughout the revalidation process, no further contact was received from the CSIRO and they departed from the entire process which was unceremoniously shut down.

One CSIRO entity who spent over 25 years with the CSIRO and instigated the ‘Double Helix Studies’ on termite damage incidence has advised that he has no doubt that the CSIRO stopped providing their ‘Technical Assessments’ because of the input of TAG.  The testing and evaluation of systems was flawed and often provided on the evidence that was ‘cherry-picked’ and provided by system and product manufacturers and installers – i.e. there was never a devil’s advocate, proper scrutineering or objectivity in the entire process.

Unfortunately, many of these CSIRO/ABSAC Technical Assessments have been utilised to form the basis for which CodeMark acceptance has been provided to several products and systems.

The Queensland Building Services Authority (BSA), now discussed as the QBCC, has huge responsibility in these matters in being at the vanguard when the physical termite management systems were being promoted throughout Australia in 2000-2001 after the release of AS 3660.1-2000 which mistakenly discussed these systems as Termite Barriers.

TAG was represented at public meetings when these systems were being trumpeted as the way forward by ABCB, Standards Australia, BSA and Industry Associations.  At a meeting in Toowoomba, a BSA Representative was publically queried by a TAG representative on the capacity of these products and systems to perform as barriers to termites.

He declined to answer and took the question on notice without ever providing a reply thereunto!

Again, review the definition of a bureaucrat and bureaucracy!

At the time, the BSA had huge problems relating to the use, better discussed as the misuse, of chemical termiticide emulsion applications which were provided by unscrupulous pest managers catering to the requirements of builders who had little interest in anything other than the cost of the product or system and having a piece of paper that certified the installation thereof.

In 2000-2001 when Building Codes Queensland (BCQ) combined with the BSA to stop chemical treatment systems by providing a raft of provisions, including a ‘concrete capping strip’, to make chemical applications difficult to provide and install – Builders were previously contracting unscrupulous pest managers to provide chemical systems at a cost that was often less than the wholesale cost of the chemical alone that was required to perform the works in accordance with the labelled requirements.

The now defunct Queensland Building Tribunal (QBT) Findings ( QBT Findings on Pearson & Guardian ) relating to these matters were astounding and this case arose after TAG provided an affidavit in relation to a pest operator named therein and working for Guardian Pest and Weed Control Pty. Ltd.  The operator was found to be indulging in unethical and illicit practises with little or no chemical termiticide emulsion being provided when installations were performed causing many thousands of houses to have little, if any, protection against termites!

The Principal of that company, Mr. David Pearson, is a prominent AEPMA member who markets a range of chemistries to the pest management industry as PCT.  TAG has previously requested that the ACCC review and test some of his formulations based on allegations from a former employee that the formulations might vary somewhat from the labelled requirements.  The ACCC declined to act, yet again, in the matter which was a consistent pattern of behaviour that related to several other matters brought to their attention by the TAG.

In 2001, the TAG was bitterly divided over the issue of the efficacy of various types of termite management systems and the TAG members who supported the use of physical barriers left TAG with much acrimony.  The present day events clearly confirm the remaining TAG entity as being correct in opposing the situation despite an article posted in the Courier Mail (2001) composed by Mr. Hedley Thomas (Courier Mail Article on TAG) which was based on the following false premise therein

i.e. :-    “Since January 1, changes to the Building Code mean builders of new homes no longer need apply termite-killing chemicals to the slab and surrounding area. Instead of chemicals, builders are installing termite-resistant physical barriers to prevent penetrations. The changes are environmentally friendly, maintenance-free and, arguably, termite-proof.”

Mr. Thomas has been requested on several occasions to recant on these printed lies that are completely disproven and dispelled by the upcoming changes to the NCC and the Standard (AS 3660.1-2014).  In fact, Mr. Thomas completely misled his readership in promoting a lie and he clearly does not want the truth to stand in the way of a good story!

The vast amount of fiction and untruths in the Courier Mail article depicted the group co-ordinator of TAG as being a ‘Chemical Man’ who was paid by the chemical lobby to expand their interests.  The truth was that the group co-ordinator was simply evaluating systems and trying to find something that actually worked!

Campaigns against reticulation systems, illicit hand-spraying and under-applications of chemical use provide strong testimony as to the veracity of this advice.

The Courier Mail article at that time was posted on the TAG website with a rebuttal to the contents therein.  However, the Courier Mail demanded that the article be removed from the website and threatened legal action over the matter.

TAG invites the Courier Mail to legally act in this instance and defend the lies provided in Mr. Thomas’s article.  This article stands in the public domain as testament to the fact that what is often written can be an absolute lie, as is clearly demonstrated herein!

Further articles provided by the Courier Mail (Courier Mail Article) & also, ( courier mail article#2 ) via a columnist with journalistic integrity, paint an entirely different circumstance to the colourful and sensational account earlier reported by Mr. Hedley Thomas with his extreme prejudice and a tenuous hold on the truth.  These later articles were concise, well composed and reasoned dialogues with factual evidence provided therein by the Courier Mail reporter – i.e.: M/s Leisa Scott.

The BSA’s role in all this needs review and back in 2000, the BSA had ‘TERMITES’ as the #1 problem on their Defects List prior to the ‘concrete capping strip provision’ implementation which overnight caused the changes outlined above in Mr. Thomas’s article.  You see, the BSA’s housing insurance scheme was required to front up on costs that were accrued through the failure of chemical treatment systems and therefore recorded that ‘incidence rate’ accordingly.

However, the cynical exercise where termite-resistant physical barriers discussed as environmentally friendly, maintenance-free and, arguably, termite-proof were being utilised was NOT recorded by the BSA as these products and systems did NOT impact on the BSA insurance scheme.

WHY?

Because if ‘bridging’ occurred, it was a Homeowner problem and, if breaching occurred, it was a system manufacturer/installer problem – Either way it was NOT – i.e. No longer; a BSA problem!

The BSA had effectively moved their problem into the private sector and this was now a Homeowner problem administered by the BSA.

Oh, the wonderful creativity of bureaucrats!

If you discuss this matter with the BSA, they will advise that termites were top of their Defects List in 2000-2001 by a large margin.  The BSA will further advise is that the ‘concrete capping strip provision’ had addressed that circumstance to the point where Termites are NOT EVEN in their Top Thirty List and termite problems are no longer on their ‘radar’!

The reality is that there are ONLY a handful of ‘concrete capping strips’, provided in the whole of Queensland and the question to the BSA is “How can a handful of concrete capping installations cause the termite incidence rate to drop so incredibly low!”

The upshot of all these bureaucratic tinkerings is that the BSA’s ‘Radar’ is clearly designed to no longer detect the termite incidence rate which is clearly evidenced as being a massively increasing incidence rate by the burgeoning numbers of post-construction termite treatment vehicles on the roads.

The BSA (QBCC) is in complete denial, as is the Dept. of Public Works and Housing – i.e. The Queensland Government!

The TAG commitment to ordinary Australian Homeowners over a 14 year period to exact some justice on their behalf continues to this day.  It is very unfortunate that the CSIRO has NOT appropriately evaluated systems in a properly considered forensic manner so as to be beneficial to the welfare of ordinary Australians.

It is unfortunate that the ACCC has NOT prosecuted the myriad of illicit actions brought to their attention by TAG in demonstrating clear evidence of under-applications and over-applications of termiticide chemistries on-site which endangered workers health and left homes with little or NO defence against termite activity.

A clear example of this behaviour is contained in a Job Sheet (Job Sheet ) which any competent pest manager would define as being a corrupt work practise on the basis that NO honest, competent pest manager could possibly complete two concrete cures, four pre-treatments and eleven trench treatments in a six hour and ten minute period after travel time of almost three hours between jobs is added into the mix of a nine and a quarter hour day.

Ask any pest manager, competent or otherwise, and he would suggest that such works should be completed in a week as opposed to a day!

The failure of the ACCC to act when evidence relating to product and system failure was abundant has caused TAG to have little faith in the ACCC as a Consumer Representative.  The TAG, would however, thank the Queensland Director for providing amenities to TAG and allowing several major meetings to be conducted at their premises.

Standards Australia have totally failed in their aspirations of assisting the public by furnishing a Standard (AS 3660.1-2000) that worked in direct contravention of the welfare of ordinary Australian Homeowners.  Their failure is further noted in the revised provisions of the initial draft of their flawed Standard that make a complete mockery of Consumers’ rights.

ALL future Standards’ committees should be vetted and Standards put out for greater scrutiny prior to publication so that they be comprehensively reviewed prior to being released into the public domain where they are able to wreak havoc on the lives of unsuspecting and trusting Australian citizens.

The BSA has failed to be truthful and acted to shore-up its insurance fund with the revamped Queensland variation to the BCA thereby leaving Homeowners exposed to the risks of termite ingress via systems discussed by Mr. Thomas as being arguably termite-proof when, in effect, they are able to be ‘bridged’ in minutes as conceded by the Chairperson of the BD-074.

The Queensland variation has exposed many thousands of Queenslanders to unacceptable risks that cannot be assuaged by either warranty or insurance.

The ABCB have taken more than seven years to address a situation that was pointed out to them in great detail back in early 2007 in a Proposal for Change ( PFC Submission ) that provides several discussions on removing the term ‘BARRIER’ from the Standard and the BCA.  Their inaction has caused many thousands of homes to be built as packaged above-ground termite food as opposed to residences for ordinary Australian Homeowners.

After an extensive and intensive TAG presentation to the ABCB National Technical Summit held in Hahndorf, South Australia in 2007 to an audience of approximately eighty people including a representative from Standards Australia, TAG received a letter ( ABCB Letter ) from the ABCB requesting that TAG take these matters to Standards Australia where they advised that the matter would be more appropriately addressed through a revision of the Standard.

All costs for this exercise were to be met by TAG!

The ABCB gave TAG the job of convincing Standards Australia without any remuneration for the se activities!

Bureaucrats were sending TAG to meet with bureaucrats and TAG was now on the bureaucratic roundabout that would continue for several years whilst bureaucrats at Standards Australia ‘parroted the advice from the BD-074’ that the Termite Management Standards are Technically Correct!

This advice defied logic and this was to be evidenced when the ACCC Letter requested by the BD-074 went unanswered by the BD-074!

This could only be paralleled by Nero fiddling whilst Rome burnt!

In effect, ordinary Australian citizens are indirectly funding bureaucrats who work against their welfare!

The TAG agenda was for this circumstance to be addressed at an earlier juncture.  However, inaction and denial on the part of bureaucrats and other parties entrusted with the public welfare has, in effect, caused this process to become long and drawn to simply provide extensive future food-stock for termites.

BCC Sub-committee/TAG minutes ( PDF-BCC Sub committee meeting on termites 3 Oct 2008 ) drafted during and after the meeting held at the ACCC boardroom highlighted problems that were demonstrated to the General Manager of the ABCB in a Submission to the General Manager of the ABCB (ABCB Submission Document) .  A hurried meeting was convened on the basis that the TAG Submission provided information that required urgent redress!

It is further interesting to note that the General Manager of the ABCB, who had previously been provided with the ABCB Submission Document in 2008, advises in the Courier Mail Article #2 “…. that there is no evidence that the existing termite provisions are deficient.”  The ABCB had an extensive raft of information that evidences the situation to be somewhat different to what he contends in his statement.

It should be clearly noted at this juncture that the abovementioned BCC/TAG meeting at the ACCC boardroom in Brisbane took place late in 2008 whilst the Standards meeting took place early in 2009.  The minutes of both meetings demonstrate that the ABCB/BCC were aware of the significant problems and noted this in the BCC Sub-committee/TAG minutes ( BCC Sub committee meeting on termites 3 Oct 2008) whilst the BD-074 committee were clearly in denial as is annunciated and evidenced in their Standards’ minutes (Standard Australia BD-074 Meeting Minutes).  The two sets of minutes provided by the BCC and the BD-074 are extremely disparate in both their views and findings!

The CSIRO failed in providing a scientific basis for their findings that physical termite management systems were able to be a barrier to termite movement and providing the inane belief that you could ‘fence’ termites out of a built structure.  Fortunately, they have now departed from the scene so that a more rational and objective view of these products and systems can be formed based on real information and practical experience.

In 2004, the Productivity Commission was approached along with several federal government ministers with advice from pest management industry heavyweights such as Bayer , BASF  , Amalgamated pest control and Garrards , requesting a grant be made to TAG to review the debacle that existed in the preconstruction area of termite management at that time.

Many State and Federal ministers have been approached in relation to these issues but unfortunately, none of these people from either side of the political spectrum is prepared to act on these matters.

A response from the current federal minister for industry, Mr.Macfarlane  when he was in the same role in the Howard Government.  The statement in his letter that, “I acknowledge the significant potential for damage to structures that can be caused by termites and encourage you to continue to engage with Standards Australia on this issue” was significant.

This debacle has caused marriage breakdowns, economic losses and huge costs to ordinary Australian Homeowners because of the entire failure of Standards Australia and the ABCB to address flawed and inaccurate provisions in their respective publications – i.e. AS 3660.1–2000 and the BCA.

The question is why have these government authorities, public servants, bureaucrats and commercial entities combined to frustrate and confuse ordinary Australian Homeowners thereby leaving, in effect, the major investment in most peoples’ lives and the singularly largest investment portfolio in Australia exposed to the destructive actions of subterranean termite species without any recourse to insurance or warranty for that circumstance which relates to flawed provisions, improper testing and a failure by governments at all levels to gain redress for a problem that has been put to their various agencies over a period of fourteen years.

As always, in compliance with the Minute of Consent Order (Minute of Consent Orders) that was provided to the TMA Corporation in the Federal Court, I advise that “NO COMMENT” is made in relation to TMA Corporation or their Termimesh product in accordance with the restraints placed on TAG by that order and that the content herein does NOT apply to either TMA Corporation or the product Termimesh – either expressly or impliedly!

The author of this document has been subjected to assaults, death threats, court actions, cyber hacking, computer theft, threats, hate websites, misrepresentation in the media and lost income whilst in the pursuit of justice for ordinary Australian Homeowners.

The Australian Government has provided NO financial assistance to the expressed TAG endeavours and this website is provided to the general public as an information resource and community service by the TAG.

The changes to the BCA (now known as the NCC) and the Standard (AS 3660.1-2000) have been largely achieved through TAG endeavours and stand as a testament to the persistent TAG actions against the inane, inept and corrupt practises described and attested to by documentation herein.

The views provided are amply evidenced by the supporting documentation which can be clicked on to suitably evidence the circumstance.

The TAG has largely completed a mission – i.e. to get fairer and more equitable provisions in the BCA and the Standard by removing the ‘Barrier Status’ therein  –  that was embarked upon in 1999 in the suburb of Forest Lake in Brisbane to assist the wider Australian communities’ welfare.