The long-awaited federal review of security of payment by John Murray AM has been released, and recommends harmonised security payment laws that, while generally along the lines of the East Coast Model, adopt features from various states' (and Singapore's) legislation.
Construction contractors desiring nationally uniform security of payment legislation should embrace Mr. Murray's recommendations as providing a blueprint for it. It looks to the best opportunity for harmonisation in the foreseeable future. There are, however, significant recommendations, including statutory trusts for subcontractor payments, that challenge orthodox contractor thinking and which will undoubtedly cause significant debate in the construction industry and between governments.
Introduction
Security of payment legislation can lay claim to be one of the most reviewed pieces of legislation in Australian history, with about a dozen reviews and enquiries since the enactment of the first Australian legislation almost 20 years ago.
Though it will not be the review to end all reviews, the long-awaited report of Mr. Murray AM into security of payment legislation, "Review of Security of Payment Laws: Building Trust and Harmony" (Murray Report), which was released by the federal government on 21 May 2018, is a significant and ambitious enterprise containing 86 recommendations across more than 300 pages.
The bulk of the Murray Report deals with his preferred security of payment model (which will undoubtedly become known as the "Murray Model"), but his report also deals with two other topics: trust accounts and project bank accounts, and contractual terms.
In this note, we provide an outline of the key features of the Murray Model, and Mr. Murray's other recommendations.
Achieving Harmonisation
As Mr. Murray identifies, he is not the first to call for uniform or harmonised security of payment laws. That call has been made for some time, and from many sectors of the industry. The benefits, especially for construction industry participants with national (or interstate) operations, are obvious. However, harmonisation is easier said than done.
It is perhaps disappointing that this very real, practical issue does not feature prominently in the Murray Report. It is considered in the last chapter, over about 2 pages, and is the subject of no specific recommendation (other than an exhortation that the Commonwealth must be involved).
It is clear that without significant political effort involving expenditure of political capital, harmonisation will not occur. The various jurisdictions are becoming more, not less, divergent. Indeed, since the Murray Report was finished in December 2017, another fault-line has emerged between New South Wales and Victoria about the operation of the legislation with an insolvent company (the subject of recommendation 10).
To date, harmonisation has been resisted essentially because of competitive federalism. However, almost 20 years has passed since New South Wales passed its legislation. The various states' and territories' legislation can be seen as providing a testbed for different policy and regulatory choices. The exercise undertaken in the Murray Report can be seen as an examination of which choices have worked out best.
When the Murray Report was presented to the Building Ministers Forum in April, the ministers reported in their communique that they would consider the recommendations and return to the next meeting with advice on how to respond to the report.
Harmonisation will require compromise from all jurisdictions. As set out below, the Murray Model, while based on the East Coast Model, adopts features from the West Coast Model and different jurisdictions. It is unlikely that any single sector or group will be entirely happy with the Murray Model, but as Otto von Bismarck said, "politics is the art of the possible, the attainable the art of the next best." If harmonisation is to be achieved, the pursuit of purity will need to yield to the achievement of the possible.
Features of the Murray Model
The table below shows the differences between the Murray Model and the East and West Coast Models. We comment below on some of the key features of the Murray Model.
While Mr. Murray calls for the Murray Model legislation to be "drafted and structured as simply as possible" [Recommendation 2; Section 7.6], the compromise nature of the Murray Model means that some complexity will be unavoidable.
General Issues
Choice of the East Coast Model. Reasonable minds can differ and have differed about whether the East Coast Model or the West Coast Model is better at securing interim payments through the construction contracting chain. The Murray Report considers neither model entirely reflects best practice. By making many of its recommendations based on the East Coast Model, however, the Murray Report concludes that construction contracts are broken as a meaningful way of securing progress payments to vulnerable contractors and subcontractors. In light of this industry failure, the priority for security of payment legislation is to secure, clearly and consistently, contractors' and subcontractors' payment entitlements and not to be concerned about minimising departures from the parties' contract payment terms.
Removal of "reference dates". The Murray Model removes a fundamental feature of the East Coast Model the notion of a "reference date" on and from which a claimant is entitled to a progress payment and replaces it with an entitlement to payments no less frequently than monthly, and on the achievement of milestones and completion. [Recommendations 14-16; Section 11.1]
Extended Christmas shutdown. The Murray Model adopts the Queensland legislation's approach of stopping the security of payment clock from 22 December to 10 January to permit a Christmas shutdown. [Recommendation 8; Section 9.4]
Criminalisation of threats. The Murray Report notes submissions (which have also been made to other security of payment reviews) about the use of coercion and threats to dissuade claimants from exercising their rights under security of payment legislation. The Murray Report recommends the introduction of a criminal offence along the lines of proposed section 32A of the South Australian legislation, which makes it an offence, punishable by fines or up to two years imprisonment for a person to "directly or indirectly assault, threaten or intimidate, or attempt to assault, threaten or intimidate, a person in relation to an entitlement to, or claim for, a progress payment". [Recommendation 76; Section 15.2]
No entitlement to serve by Dropbox. The Murray Model does not permit service by Dropbox (or similar services) in all cases. However, it retains the flexibility of allowing the construction contract to prescribe methods of service (which can include online document delivery). [Recommendation 75; Section 15.1]
No separation between standard and complex claims. The Murray Model does not contain different provisions for "standard" and "complex" claims (as is the case in Queensland). However, as noted below, adjudicators can extend the time for providing an adjudication response. [Recommendation 2; Section 7.6]
Payment Claims and Payment Schedules
Form and content of payment claims. Reversing the trend in New South Wales and Queensland to remove the requirement for a payment claim to state it is made under the legislation, the Murray Model requires a payment claim to state not only that it is made under the legislation, but also to set out the period in which a payment schedule is to be provided and the practical consequences for failing to provide a payment schedule; and contain a breakdown of the items claimed. While the Murray Report refers to the provisions in Singapore, similar provisions are contained in the implied terms found in the West Coast Model legislation. [Recommendations 22-23; Sections 12.1-12.2]
Supporting statements. The Murray Model adopts the New South Wales requirement for supporting statements to accompany payment claims (requiring a statement that subcontractors and suppliers have been paid). [Recommendations 32-34; Section 12.7]
Period to serve payment claims. The Murray Model removes the 12-month period following the carrying out of work in which to serve a payment claim, replacing it with a general period of six months, and permitting a final payment claim within 28 days of the end of the last defects liability period. [Recommendations 24-25; Section 12.3]
Final payment claim following termination. The Murray Model expressly permits a claimant to make one final payment claim following the termination of a construction contract. [Recommendation 17; Section 11.1]
Adjudication
Timing of adjudication responses. While there is no separate two-tier process (as in Queensland with standard and complex payment claims), the Murray Model permits respondents to seek an extension of time of up to 10 business days from an adjudicator to provide their adjudication response. [Recommendation 40; Section 13.3]
Adjudicators and security. The Murray Model adopts the West Coast Model provisions permitting an adjudicator to determine whether security under a construction contract is to be returned. [Recommendation 82; Section 15.5]
Appointment of adjudicators. Under the Murray Model, while a claimant makes an adjudication application to an authorised nominating authority of its choosing, the ANA only nominates adjudicators for the regulator to appoint. The Murray Model also permits ad hoc agreement of adjudicators between claimants and respondents in certain circumstances. [Recommendations 36-38; Section 13.2]
Qualification and regulation of authorised nominating authorities and adjudicators. The Murray Report proposes a significant regulation and oversight of adjudicators and authorised nominating authorities. Most notably, an expectation that adjudicators will work on only one adjudication at one time, that an adjudicator cannot delegate their task, grading of adjudicators, and suspension of appointments on adverse court decisions. [Recommendations 60-68; Sections 14.1-14.3]
Adjudication fees. The Murray Report proposes changes to adjudication fees, including fixed and capped fees and rates. Under the Murray Model, each party usually shares the adjudication fees equally. [Recommendations 69-72; Section 14.4]
Review of Adjudicators' Decisions
Adjudication reviews. The Murray Report proposes that both claimants and respondents dissatisfied with an adjudication may seek an adjudication review from a senior adjudicator. No new reasons for withholding payment may be relied on in the adjudication review, and a respondent seeking review must pay into a trust account the adjudicated amount. [Recommendations 43-50; Sections 13.5-13.6]
Severance on jurisdictional error. The Murray Model contains the Queensland provision expressly permitting severance of adjudicators' decisions following a finding of jurisdictional error. [Recommendation 57; Section 13.10]
Administration
A national regulator? The Murray Model assumes the existence of a "Regulator" to exercise key functions and powers. Ideally, it would seem to be a national regulator, though there are significant legal and practical issues involved.
Reporting. The Murray Report recommends that adjudicators' decisions not be published, but that the relevant regulator publish an annual report and be provided with operational and statistical data. [Recommendations 73, 77-79; Sections 14.5, 15.3]
Unaddressed issues. Perhaps because of the Murray Report's (understandable) focus on the larger picture, it does not cover numerous practical issues faced by claimants and respondents that have been exposed by decided cases (e.g. the difficulty of having a remitted or new adjudication of a final payment claim that is set aside for jurisdictional error). These issues should be addressed in any harmonised legislation.
Regulation of Contractual Terms
While the bulk of the Murray Report deals with the Murray Model, consistent with the terms of reference, the report also contains consideration of various contractual clauses that may restrict claimants from obtaining payment.
Pay when paid and long payment prohibitions. The Murray Report recommends the continuation of the now-common prohibitions against pay-when-paid provisions, and prohibitions against long payment. [Recommendations 18-19; Sections 11.2-11.3]
Cash retention on trust. The Murray Report recommends legislation requiring principals, head contractors and subcontractors to hold all cash retention on trust for the head contractor, subcontractor and sub-subcontractor respectively. [Recommendation 81; Section 15.5]
Time bars. The Murray Report recommends legislation that voids time bar clauses where giving the required notice is not reasonably possible, would be unreasonably onerous, or serves no commercial purpose. [Recommendation 84; Section 16.6]
Statutory Trusts for Subcontractor Payment
The Murray Model clearly recognises the practical limitations of statutory payment mechanisms extending payments on account to insolvent contractors. [Recommendation 10; Section 10.1].
The Murray Report has, however, directly tackled the observed lack of security provided by security of payment legislation in Australia by strongly endorsing that all contractors be required to hold payments to be made to subcontractors, on all building projects of AU$1 million and more in value, in a statutory trust account. [Recommendations 85-86; Chapter 17]
The Murray Report reaches this recommendation by addressing and dismissing other forms of security, including workers liens and subcontractor charges found in Queensland and South Australian legislation; trade credit insurance; and the project bank account (PBA) model adopted in the Queensland Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017, in favour of statutory trusts.
The Murray Report traverses the history of statutory trusts identified by the WA Law Reform Commission in 1998 and the Cole Royal Commission in 2003, and substantially considered and developed by the NSW Collins Inquiry report of 2012. After reviewing Queensland's and the Commonwealth's PBA models , the Murray Report determined that the PBA model is too limited, in only effectively protecting the first tier of contractors and not the more vulnerable subcontractors down the contracting pyramid.
It is perhaps prudent that the Murray Report, despite its observation that legislative intervention to introduce statutory trusts is long overdue in Australia, does not tie the fate of this recommendation for statutory trusts inextricably to its Murray Model for security for payment legislation. [Recommendation 53; Section 13.8]
It will be an interesting to see where the art of the possible leads the Murray Report and its recommendations for systemic reform of security for payment in Australia.
East Coast Model (Principally the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW Act))
Murray Model1
Reference Date for progress payments
West Coast Model (Construction Contracts Act 2004 WA (CCA))
Under the NSW Act entitlement to progress payment is based `on and from each reference date' determined in accordance with the contract. If there is no provision in the contract, the last day of the named month in which the construction work was first carried out and the last day of each subsequent named month is the reference date.
Reference dates to be replaced with an entitlement of persons who carry out construction works under a construction contract to make a payment claim every named month, or more frequently if so provided under the contract to payments no less frequently than monthly, and on the achievement of milestones and completion. (Recommendation 14; Section 11.1)
West Coast Model does not use reference dates.
Payment claims are to be made at the frequency provided for by the written terms of the construction contract, and if no written terms, an entitlement to make one or more claims for progress payment are implied (section 15 and Schedule 1 Division 3 of the CCA).
Claimants in liquidation
No express provisions dealing with claims by insolvent claimants in East Coast Model.
Express provision that claimants in liquidation will not be able to make a payment claim. (Recommendation 10; Section 10.1)
Excluding types of claims
No express provisions dealing with claims by insolvent claimants in West Coast Model.
No express provisions restricting the types of claims under NSW Act, but the Victorian Act has categories of excluded claims such as time related costs and latent conditions
When payment claims can be made
The legislation should not include the carve-out of amounts (restricting types of claims) that a person is entitled to under a construction contract. (Recommendation 11; Section 10.2)
No express provisions exclude types or categories of claim in West Coast Model.
There is a requirement for service of payment claims within 12 months under the NSW Act.
A progress claim must be made within 6 months after the construction work was last carried out (Recommendation 24, Section 12.3).
Payment claim endorsement and contents
There is no such time period restriction in the CCA, but contractual terms that may limit the timing of progress claims and final claims after practical completion and final completion will apply.
No requirement under NSW Act for a payment claim to be endorsed as a payment claim, except if dealing with an exempt residential construction contract.
Payment claims should identify a detailed breakdown of the amount claimed; the time period within which the respondent is to provide a payment schedule; and should be endorsed as a claim made under the legislation (among other related requirements) (Recommendations 22 and 23; Sections 12.1 and 12.2).
As there is no separate statutory payment claim under the West Coast Model, there is no requirement for a payment claim to be endorsed as a claim under the CCA.
The contents of the payment claim are as required by the written terms of the construction contract. However if no written terms, the CCA's implied terms prescribe what the payment claim must include. (section 16 and Schedule 1 Division 3 of the CCA).
1 Colour Code to Murray Model: Neutral treatment to claimants and respondents: Black Pro claimants treatment: Orange Pro respondents treatment: Green
4
East Coast Model (Principally the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW Act))
Supporting statements required
Murray Model1
West Coast Model (Construction Contracts Act 2004 WA (CCA))
NSW Act requires a supporting statement and that it include a statement that subcontractors and suppliers have been paid.
Supporting statements to accompany payment claims submitted to a head contractor to the principal (requiring a statement that subcontractors and suppliers have been paid) (Recommendation 32; Section 12.7).
No such requirement in the CCA, but a noncompliance with construction contract's provisions requiring proof of payment of subcontractors to accompany a payment claim, may affect the efficacy of that payment claim for the purposes of the CCA.
Payment claim permitted after termination
No provision addressing entitlement to payment claim for work executed prior to termination of the construction contract in NSW Act.
A claimant can make a final payment claim following the termination of a construction contract for work completed prior to termination (Recommendation 25; Section 12.3).
Failure to provide a payment schedule
No provision addressing entitlement to payment claim for work executed prior to termination of the construction contract in CCA.
Any contractual rights of claim, posttermination, continue to apply.
Under the NSW Act, when a respondent fails to provide a payment schedule within the prescribed timeframe or fails to pay the whole or part of the claimed amount by the due date of payment, the claimant may:
make an application for adjudication, or
recover the unpaid portion of the claimed amount as a debt from the courts.
The Murray Report recommends the NSW Act as a suitable model
(Recommendation 29; Section 12.5).
Christmas period
The West Coast model does not prescribe timeframes for responding to a payment claim.
The construction contract's written terms for the time and form of response to a payment claim (e.g. progress certificate) apply. If no written terms, the CCA's implied terms require a notice of dispute containing prescribed information be given by respondent within 14 days, failing which the amount of the claim is due to be paid in 28 days from the payment claim (section 17 and Schedule 1 Division 5 of the CCA).
A respondent who has fails to reply to a payment claim is subject to the terms (written or implied by the CCA) of the construction contract. Enforcement of an amount deemed due under the construction contract is not expressly characterised a debt by the CCA.
The NSW Act defines business day to include a Christmas shutdown from 27 to 31 December inclusive.
The definition of business to include a Christmas shutdown from 22 December to 10 January (Recommendation 8; Section 9.4).
The CCA defines business day to include a Christmas shutdown from 25 December to 7 January inclusive.
1 Colour Code to Murray Model: Neutral treatment to claimants and respondents: Black Pro claimants treatment: Orange Pro respondents treatment: Green
5
East Coast Model (Principally the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW Act))
Final payment and return of retention
Murray Model1
The NSW Act does not expressly include claim for return of security in the definition of progress payment. It is clear that it does not capture security outside retention money, but payment claims can seek return of retention money.
Adjudication
A payment claim can relate to a final payment including recovery of retention or the return of alternative security. (Recommendation 25; Section 12.3)
Adjudicators are currently appointed by authorised nominating authorities (ANAs).
Adjudicators are to be appointed to a dispute by a new Regulator or parties can agree on the appointment of a particular Adjudicator in certain circumstances (Recommendations 36 and 38; Section 13.2).
ANAs can refer nominations for Adjudicators to the new Regulator but cannot appoint an Adjudicator (Recommendation 37; Section 13.2).
No centralised training or regulatory organisation provided for in NSW Act.
No equivalent provisions in NSW Act.
All Adjudicators are to be trained, registered and graded by the Regulator (Recommendation 66; section 14.3).
Adjudicators will work on one adjudication at one time, cannot delegate their task.
Claimants and respondents are equally liable for payment of the adjudicators' fees, unless the adjudicator determines otherwise, and set out the matters an adjudicator may consider when deciding the apportionment of their fees and expenses (Recommendation 72; Section 14.4).
Capping of fees for adjudicators / who pays fees
No capping of fees under the NSW Act. Each party to pay fees in equal portions or such portion as the adjudicator determines.
Capped adjudication fees for payment claims of less than $25,000. (Recommendation 69; Section 14.3).
West Coast Model (Construction Contracts Act 2004 WA (CCA))
The CCA defines a payment dispute to include when security held by a party is due to be returned under the contract and that security has not been returned.
Parties can agree to nominate either the Prescribed Appointer (equivalent to ANAs in East Coast Model) or an accredited Adjudicator in their construction contract. Otherwise the claimant lodges the application with a Prescribed Appointer who appoints an accredited Adjudicator.
No centralised training or regulatory organisation contemplated by the CCA. No equivalent provisions in CCA restricting delegation of adjudicator's task, although some restrictions to multiple appointments without consent of parties in the West Coast Model. No provisions relating to suspension on adverse court decisions.
WA Regulations can prescribe maximum fees, but presently do not do so. Each party bears their own costs unless a party has engaged in frivolous or vexation conduct.
1 Colour Code to Murray Model: Neutral treatment to claimants and respondents: Black Pro claimants treatment: Orange Pro respondents treatment: Green
6
East Coast Model (Principally the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW Act))
Murray Model1
Prohibition of respondent including new reasons in adjudication response
Section 20(2B) of the NSW Act provides that the respondent cannot include any reasons for withholding payment in an adjudication response that were not included in the payment schedule provided to the claimant.
Include the prohibition of new reasons being raised in the adjudication response that were not included in the payment schedule based on NSW Act as model (Recommendation 45; Section 13.5).
West Coast Model (Construction Contracts Act 2004 WA (CCA))
The CCA does not prevent respondents from raising reasons for non-payment in adjudication responses that were not raised in any contractual response to a payment claim (e.g. a progress certificate or notice of dispute).
New right of review of a decision
No right of review in NSW.
(Victoria currently allows for adjudication review in limited circumstances which contemplate whether the original adjudicator had erroneously included an `excluded amount' or excluded an amount because of erroneously determining that the amount be an `excluded amount' in an adjudication determination.)
A party that is aggrieved with an adjudication decision (unless the party agreed the Adjudicator) can apply to the Regulator for a review by a senior adjudicator of a determination that rejects the adjudication application, or the adjudicated amount is:
equal to or greater than $100,000 of the scheduled amount; or
No right of severance for jurisdictional error lower than $100,000 of the claimed
in NSW Act.
amount.
(Recommendation 42; Section 13.4)
There are limits to when a respondent can apply for review.
Any parts of an Adjudicator's decision that falls into jurisdictional error, but does not affect the whole of the decision, can be severed (Recommendation 57; Section 13.10).
No publication of decisions
No publication of Adjudicators' decisions in NSW.
Decisions are published in Qld.
No publication of Adjudicators' decisions. Rather, an annual report with statistical data to be published by the Regulator (Recommendation 73; Section 14.5).
There is the potential of considerable prejudice to applicants under the WA Model, with set-off and other counterclaims being potentially raised by a respondent in an adjudication response.
No general right of review of adjudicators' determinations made in the West Coast Model. A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Adjudicator to dismiss an Adjudication Application made under section 31(2) (a) of the CCA may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision. No right of severance for jurisdictional error under CCA.
The CCA provides that Adjudicators' decisions may be published by the WA Building Commissioner. They are currently published, where practicable, by the Construction Registrar in the NT.
