Review of developers
Last year, the Queensland government convened a three-person panel charged with reviewing the role of developers in the building and construction industry.
Key to the review was considering the impact developers have on the quality and safety of the design, construction, and certification of buildings and other work practices along with advancing favourable security of payment outcomes in the building and construction industry.
Here’s an update on the review of developers in Queensland.
Following 12 months of engagement with industry participants and stakeholders, the panel released its long awaited 60-page Discussion Paper in November 2022. The panel was clear to say the Discussion Paper did not contain findings or recommendations. Rather, it listed 38 ‘options’ said to have been suggested by participants during its public consultation process.
Options included licensing of developers, mandatory disclosure obligations before developers enter into contracts with builders, minimum standards for tendering, cooling off periods, and an expansion of the existing unfair contracting legislation to comprehensively apply to developers.
Stakeholders were asked to provide submissions on the potential advantages and disadvantages of the options presented and whether the options were workable.
The deadline for industry submissions closed in early January 2023. We now await a final report from the panel of its ultimate findings and recommendations. No deadline or target date has been set at this stage. Watch this space!
You might be also interested in...
Insurance | 17 Mar 2023
The New South Wales Supreme Court has recently considered the construction of a general liability policy of insurance, as to whether a sub-subcontractor was an ‘insured’ or ‘agent’ as defined in the policy to enliven coverage. We examine.
Uncategorised | 17 Mar 2023
ASIC brought a proceeding against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), alleging CBA violated the ASIC Act and Corporations Act by erroneously charging monthly account fees to customers in circumstances where the fee should have been waived. ASIC asserted CBA did not have adequate systems and processes. The court dismissed the proceeding and rejected ASIC’s argument that systems and processes need to have a zero percent mistake or failure rate to be adequate. Partner Selina Nutley explains the key points and what you need to know now.