Dear ACT Civil And Administrative Tribunal,
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT), and/or Freedom of Information Act 1982 I request the following documents from the period 01 January 2021 through 07 September 2023:

All documents containing the terms “rectification” and “nominee”;
All documents containing the terms “rectification” and “builder”;
All documents containing the terms “rectification” and “engineer”;
All documents containing the terms “rectification” and “certifier”;
All documents containing the term “rectification” and “liability”;
All documents containing the terms “bankrupt”, and “nominee”;
All documents containing the terms “builder” “builders” and “liable”;
All documents containing the terms “bankrupt” “bankruptcy” and “builder”;
All documents contained the terms “ “bankrupt” “bankruptcy” and “construction”;
All documents contained the terms “construction” and “digital”;
All documents contained the terms “pro-prosecution” “pro prosecution” and “construction”;
All documents contained the terms “pro-prosecution” “pro prosecution” and “nominee”;
All documents contained the terms “pro-prosecution” “pro prosecution” and “builder”;

The reference to ‘all documents’ includes paper records as well as electronic data or otherwise, including, but not limited to:
Emails;
Text messages;
Signal messages;
Telegram messages;
WhatsApp messages;
Skype messages;
Messages on any other platform, including internal messaging systems
Letters;
Internal and third party recommendations;
Submissions;
Guidelines;
Proposals;
Memoranda;
Minutes, notes or other records of meetings or conversations.

Thank you
Dated: 7 September 2023

Dear JACS FOI,

Please provide internal documents (correspondence, memos, minutes, policies etc) dated 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2023 related to rectification orders of specialised trade work (ie plumbing, electrical, structural engineer etc) issued to builders and/or nominees and the statute of limitations for liability.
I am particularly interested in internal documents regarding the statute of limitations for builders/nominees and that for trades, and any internal documents regarding the interpretation/application of legislation in such cases by ACAT.

Karen

Dear JACS FOI,

To narrow the scope even further for ACAT, please provide all INTERNAL emails and memos from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2023 with the words "rectification"; "builder" (and/or "nominee") and "statute of limitations"(OR its internal abbreviation).

Thank you for referring me to the ACAT website to review ACAT's self-generated case law, however my request was for INTERNAL documents - (minutes/emails/memos etc).
Thank you in advance.

Yours sincerely,
Karen

Dear JACS FOI,

The “scope” of my request has been narrowed at your request, twice now.
If there are 4,000 files of “INTERNAL emails and memos from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2023 with the words "rectification"; "builder" (and/or "nominee") and "statute of limitations"(OR its internal abbreviation)” I request access to all of them.
Public trust in institutions that purport to wield judicial power, particularly when it relates to challenges to orders made by the ACT government is fundamental to retaining judicial legitimacy and avoiding apprehended bias. I refer to the ALRC Commission's Review of Judicial Impartiality, and quote:
“Australian courts have long recognised that “[t]he public is entitled to expect that issues determined by judges and other public office holders should be decided, among other things, free of prejudice and without bias”.
The ALRC Background Paper J17 further states:
"The test for apprehended bias in Australia is: whether, in all the circumstances, a fair-minded lay observer with knowledge of the material objective facts ‘might entertain a reasonable apprehension that [the judge] might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question’.".
ACAT is a judicial institution formed by the ACT Government (albeit questionably - see Part IV, s 23 (2) of the Canberra Act 1988), managed by the ACT Government, whose sole oversight is again, the ACT Government, who apparently has been granted the authority to adjudicate orders made by that same Government against members of the public.
Furthermore, those same members of the public are essentially required to use ACAT as their first recourse in challenging a Government order made against them.
Could any fair minded observer honestly assert that this has any semblance of judicial impartiality?
Perhaps even more disturbing is rather than take steps to provide MORE transparency, and reassure members of the public it has nothing to hide, ACAT has chosen to instead pull out their Government Issued "Get Out of Jail Free (for now) Card - aka as the "unreasonable and substantial diversion of resources" excuse.
This only serves to increase the lack of trust and growing cynicism as to ACAT's real function and role - to rubber stamp any and all legislation and orders the Canberra Regime dictates.
Disclosure of the requested materials is in the public interest - I can assure you that the entirety of builders and tradies in the Construction Industry in Canberra would take no issue with their taxes being used by ACAT to provide the requested materials.
Moreover, the "resources” ACAT will expend providing this narrow request is likely to be substantially less than if this request is denied and the issue needs to be escalated.

I look forward to receiving the requested materials.
Karen

Dear ACT Civil And Administrative Tribunal,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of ACT Civil And Administrative Tribunal's handling of my FOI request 'Construction Industry'.

I have narrowed the scope of my original request twice now, and for the reasons set out in my most recent correspondence (accessible at the link below), the review of 4,000 docuemtns is an important and necessary expenditure of tax payer resources.

The full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/c...

Karen

Thank you for your response.
I understand that once the formal refusal is issued I can "seek an ACT Ombudsman review of this decision. After the ACT Ombudsman makes a decision, (I) may apply to the ACAT for review of the Ombudsman decision”?
Is this a joke?
I can request a review from the Ombudsman and then seek a review OF the Ombudsman from the same people I have requested transparency from for the past two months?

Thank you for the first laugh I've had since returning to the penal colony, and for confirming that the ACT is clearly incapable of running a fair and democratic system of “self” governance.

Please send through the Formal Refusal Notice immediately so I can pursue assistance from those at the Federal level who understand the need to deal with the Canberra Regime once and for all.

Karen