The problem with the ICC gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
The primary purpose of the ICC is to put another hoop to jump through on your way to The Commonwealth Ombudsman who will first ask, have you exhausted every other means of redress.
Indeed, if you get past the ICC, you still have the AAT and complaints then require The commonwealth Ombudsman to make recommendations that would impinge "The Separation of the Powers".
The Constitution means nothing to our regulator. Imagine a bloke who lives in Queensland takes aerial photo's and sells them in West Australia. He gets prosecuted and looses despite the prosecution "Hindering free trade between the States".
If this appointee has "form" in vexatious" prosecutions, the posting is tainted and arguably "frustrates" all applications that cross her desk for review.
Thought should be given to launch a complaint to The Commonwealth Ombudsman against The Industry Complaints Commissioner. All should be looked at seriously, closely and intimately. Commissioner Hart would be the only one to come out without blood on his hands.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 6th Dec 2013 at 21:05.
Reason: And another thing,