I have applied to the Ombudsman to provide clarity and resolve the follow:

In requesting a review on the QBCC penalty outcome of the 5 offences substantiated.  This review is based under the perimeters that the QBCC Act and the Acts Interpretation Act the word 'MUST' relates to issue a penalty amount and demerit points to each offence to person(s) and/or registered business entity.  

ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1954 - SECT 32CA
Meaning of may and must etc.
32CA Meaning of may and must etc.

(1) In an Act, the word "may" , or a similar word or expression, used in relation to a power indicates that the power may be exercised or not exercised, at discretion.

(2) In an Act, the word "must" , or a similar word or expression, used in relation to a power indicates that the power is required to be exercised.

(3) To remove any doubt, it is declared that this section applies to an Act passed after 1 January 1992 despite any presumption or rule of interpretation.
 

The Acts Interpretation Act 1954 - Sect 32CA states;

In this regard, please see section 67AW the QBCC Act that states:

(1)    This section applies to a person who -

         (a)   has a conviction for a demerit offence; or

         (b)   is a judgment debtor for an unsatisfied judgment debt.

(2)    The commission must allocate demerit points under this part to the person as

         follows—

         (a)   for a conviction for a demerit offence—the number of points allocated to

                the offence under a regulation;

         (b)   for an unsatisfied judgment debt—10 points.

(3)   This section is subject to section 67AZB.

It takes the QBCC too long to investigate and resolve.  Consumers are not able to make informed decision with a builder/company especially if the demerit points are removed within 3 years and the QBCC takes a year to investigate.  This is just another reason there needs to 'Be a change and QBCC Reform'.