Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002

Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002

Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002[1] was passed by the Australian State of Victoria to allow for the rapid determination of progress claims under building contracts or sub-contracts and contracts for the supply of goods or services in the building industry. This process was designed to ensure cash flow to businesses in the building industry, without parties get tied up in lengthy and expensive litigation or arbitration.

Adjudication is much quicker than litigation in a court (an adjudicator’s determination must be made within 10 days of receipt of application) and less expensive. An adjudicator’s determination is binding on the parties and can be recovered as a debt owing in a Court.

Adjudication applications under the Act can be made to Building Adjudication Victoria Inc.

Conflict resolution

Conflict resolution

conflict resolution is the process of attempting to resolve a dispute or a conflict. Successful conflict resolution occurs by listening to and providing opportunities to meet the needs of all parties, and to adequately address interests so that each party is satisfied with the outcome. Conflict Practitioners talk about finding the win-win outcome for parties involved, vs. the win-lose dynamic found in most conflicts. While 'conflict resolution' engages conflict once it has already started , 'conflict prevention' aims to end conflicts before they start or before they lead to verbal, physical, or legal fighting or violence.

Conflict itself has both positive and negative outcomes. Practitioners in the field of Conflict Resolution aim to find ways to promote the positive outcomes and minimize the negative outcomes.

There is a debate in the field of conflict work as to whether or not all conflicts can be resolved, thus making the term conflict resolution one of contention. Other common terms include Conflict Management, Conflict Transformation and Conflict Intervention. Conflict management can be the general process in which conflict is managed by the parties toward a conclusion. However it is also referred to as a situation where conflict is a deliberate personal, social and organizational tool, especially used by capable politicians and other social engineers.

Conflict Practitioners work on conflict in many arenas - internationally, domestically, interpersonally and intrapersonally.


Among groups

Conflict resolution processes can vary. However, group conflict usually involves two or more groups with opposing views regarding specific issues. There is often another group or individual (mediator or facilitator) who is considered to be neutral (or suppressing biases) on the subject. This last bit though is quite often not entirely demanded if the "outside" group is well respected by all opposing parties. Resolution methods can include conciliation, mediation, arbitration or litigation.

These methods all require third party intervention. A resolution method which is direct between the parties with opposing views is negotiation. Negotiation can be the 'traditional' model of hard bargaining where the interests of a group far outweigh the working relationships concerned. The 'principled' negotiation model is where both the interests and the working relationships concerned are viewed as important. Often, face saving and other intangible goals play a role in the success of negotiation.

It may be possible to avoid conflict without actually resolving the underlying dispute, by getting the parties to recognize that they disagree but that no further action needs to be taken at that time. In many cases such as in a democracy, a dialogue may be the preferred process in which it may even be desirable that they disagree, thus exposing the issues to others who need to consider it for themselves: in this case the parties might agree to disagree and agree to continue the dialogs on the issue.

It is also possible to manage a conflict without resolution, in forms other than avoidance. For more, see conflict management.

Among non-human primates and other animals

Conflict resolution has also been studied in non-human primates (see Frans de Waal, 2000). Aggression is more common among relatives and within a group, than between groups. Instead of creating a distance between the individuals, however, the primates were more intimate in the period after the aggressive incident. These intimacies consisted of grooming and various forms of body contact. Stress responses, like an increased heart rate, usually decrease after these reconciliatory signals. Different types of primates, as well as many other species who are living in groups, show different types of conciliatory behaviour. Resolving conflicts that threaten the interaction between individuals in a group is necessary for survival, hence has a strong evolutionary value. These findings contradicted previous existing theories about the general function of aggression, i.e. creating space between individuals (first proposed by Konrad Lorenz), which seems to be more the case in between groups conflicts.

In addition to research in primates, biologists are beginning to explore reconciliation in other animals. Up until recently, the literature dealing with reconciliation in non-primates have consisted of anecdotal observations and very little quantitative data. Although peaceful post-conflict behavior had been documented going back to the 1960s, it wasn’t until 1993 that Rowell made the first explicit mention of reconciliation in feral sheep. Reconciliation has since been documented in spotted hyenas,[1] lions, dolphins,[2] dwarf mongooses, domestic goats[3] and domestic dogs

Confidence-building measures

Confidence-building measures

Confidence-building measures (CBMs) are certain techniques which are designed to lower tensions and make it less likely that a conflict would break out through a misunderstanding, mistake, or misreading of the actions of a potential adversary. CBMs emerged from attempts by the Cold War superpowers and their military alliances (the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw Pact) to avoid nuclear war by accident or miscalculation. However, CBMs also exist at other levels of conflict situations, and in different regions of the world although they might not have been called CBMs.

1. CBMs dealing with troop movements and exercises:

a. Notification of maneuvers (with different procedures and length of advance notice for different types and sizes of maneuvers).
b. Notification of alert exercises and mobilization drills.
c. Notification of naval activities outside of normal areas.
d. Notification of aircraft operations and flights near sensitive and border areas.
e. Notification of other military activities (in the "out of garrison" category) which might be misinterpreted.

2. CBMs dealing with exchanges of information. Information may be exchanged, directly or through third parties, in the following categories:

a. Military budgets
b. New equipment and arms
c. Unit locations
d. Significant changes in a unit's size, equipment or mission
e. The major elements of strategic and tactical doctrine

3. CBMs dealing with exchanges of personnel. These personnel exchanges should be balanced in terms of numbers and duration, and could include:

a. Inviting observers to maneuvers, exercises and "out of garrison" activities. (The observers could be from neighboring states, from a third party neutral nation, or from an international organization).
b. Stationing permanent liaison observers at major headquarters. (As in b above, the observers could be from neighbors, neutrals, or international organizations).
c. Exchanging personnel as students or instructors at military academies, military schools, and war colleges.
d. Exchanging military attachés from all three services (land, sea, air). These attaché positions should be filled by highly qualified personnel, and not be used as "golden exiles" to get rid of officers who are politically undesirable.

4. CBMs dealing with the assembly, collation, and dissemination of data.

a. A central registry should be set up (under international organization auspices) to assemble, collect, analyze and publish information on armaments, organization and disposition of military units.
b. Independent technical means (under national or international organization control) should be available to verify this data. There should be agreement on the nature of these means and an understanding that there will be no interference with these means.

5. CBMs dealing with border tensions.

a. Set up demilitarized zones in sensitive border areas. Depending on the sensitivity of the area and the tensions between the two countries, certain types of weapons and units (i.e., armor, artillery) could be excluded from these areas.
b. Establish joint patrols in these areas (with or without the participation of other third party neutrals).
c. Establish fixed observation posts in these areas manned by neutrals and representatives from the two border nations.
d. Set up sensors (ground, tower, air, tethered aerostat) to supplement these patrols and observation posts.

6. CBMs dealing with actions which might be interpreted as provocative.

a. Agreement should be reached on acceptable and unacceptable military activities, especially in sensitive and border areas.
b. Clear limits should be placed on those military activities, such as a mobilizations and calling up selected reserves, which could lead to misunderstandings. Notification procedures should be established for practice movements.

7. CBMs dealing with communications.

a. Direct ("hot line") communications systems should be established between heads of state, chiefs of military forces (defense ministers), general staffs, and units in contact across a border.
b. The use of coded military message traffic (on-line and off-line cryptography) should be limited.

8. CBMs dealing with weapons.

a. Agreement should be reached on levels and types of weapons, with emphasis on the exclusion of high-performance and expensive weapons systems.
b. Agreement should be reached on levels of military arms budgets.
c. Defensive weapons (anti-aircraft artillery, anti-tank weapons, mines) should be given preference in ceilings over offensive weapons (tanks, artillery, aircraft).

9. CBMs dealing with extra-military contacts

a. Encourage visits by military athletic teams.
b. Encourage social and professional contacts through the attaché network and the various elements of the regional military system.

1O. CBMs dealing with training and education.

a. Teach CBM approaches in national military academies, staff schools, and war colleges, as well as in the multinational military schools.
b. Apply CBM techniques in command post and field exercises.
c. Encourage the development of military trans-nationalism (i.e., a sense of military professionalism and mutual respect that transcends national boundaries).
d. Examine primary and secondary school curricula and texts for aggressive, hostile or false information on potential adversaries.

11. CBMs and regional military systems.

a. The institutions and activities of regional military systems such as the Inter-American Military System should be examined to see how they can be used in support of a confidence-building regime. The CBM support functions can include verification, contacts, channel of communications and a forum for expressing a wide range of ideas. (The institutions of the Inter-American Military System include: Inter-American Defense Board, Inter-American Defense College, multinational military schools in Panama, Service Chief's Conferences, military attaches, joint exercises, communications links, etc).
b. Consideration should be given to lowering the presently high U.S. profile in most of the institutions of the Inter-American Military System, and to the possibility of moving key institutions (Board and College) to a Latin American country.

12. CBMs and functionalism. Certain functional areas of military-to-military cooperation should be assessed for their possible value as confidence-builders, even between adversary nations. These include: search and rescue (SAR) missions for aircraft and shipping; disaster relief; hurricane tracking; civic action; humanitarian projects.

13. CBMs dealing with ways of expanding CBMs.

a. Establish a regional or subregional mechanism, similar to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) to study confidence-building measures and ways to improve and increase them.
b. Discuss CBMs at the periodic conferences of service chiefs.
c. Explore the possibility of extending CBMs geographically to other areas. In the Central American case to the Caribbean and South America.

Confidence and Security-Building Measures

Confidence and Security-Building Measures

Confidence building measures or confidence and security building measures are actions taken to reduce fear of attack by both (or more) parties in a situation of tension with or without physical conflict. The term is most often used in the context of international politics, but is similar in logic to that of trust and interpersonal communication used to reduce conflictual situations among human individuals.

Mathematically, this term assumes that a positive feedback model, where fear (and/or suspicion) of military attack or human rights violations is the positive feedback factor, is a valid model of the conflict. The actions which constitute confidence building measures provide a negative feedback to the conflict, which weakens, or possibly cancels or reverses the tension which would otherwise grow exponentially and eventually turn into a war.


  • 1 Information exchange and verification
  • 2 People to people contacts
  • 3 Validity of the model
  • 4 See also
  • 5 External links

Information exchange and verification

In international relations, the way that confidence-building measures are intended to reduce fear and suspicion (the positive feedbacks) is to make the different states' (or opposition groups') behaviour more predictable.

This typically involves exchanging information and making it possible to verify this information, especially information regarding armed forces and military equipment.

People to people contacts

Confidence building measures between nation-states have for many centuries also included the existence of and increased activities by embassies, which are state institutions geographically located inside the territory of other states, staffed by people expected to have extremely good interpersonal skills who can explain and resolve misunderstandings due to differences in language and culture which are incorrectly perceived as threatening, or encourage local knowledge of a foreign culture by funding artistic and cultural activities.

A much more grassroots form of confidence building occurs directly between ordinary people of different states. Short visits by individual children or groups of children to another state, and longer visits (6-12 months) by secondary and tertiary students to another state, have widely been used in the European Union as one of the methods of decreasing the tensions which had earlier led to many centuries of inter-European wars, culminating in the first and second world wars.

Validity of the model

If the feedback model assumed by the confidence building measure mechanism is correct, then the rapidly developing improvement in communication between ordinary people by the internet should provide extremely robust, fast methods of information exchange and verification, as well as improved people-to-people contacts and general building of trust networks, reducing the intensity and frequency of wars.