Plan to force developers to get licence proving they’re ‘fit and proper’

Queenslanders could face even higher prices and more delays for new homes as the government pushes forward with plans to regulate developers.

Public Works Minister Mick de Brenni

• Editor’s view: Won’t help housing crisis

Queenslanders have been warned they could face even higher prices and more delays for new homes as the state ­government pushes forward with a proposal to regulate the development industry.

A report by a state government-appointed panel has argued property developers need to be accredited to bring in minimum standards, increase transparency, and offer greater financial certainty, particularly to head contractors, subbies and others in the construction ecosystem.

If the government introduces the licensing regime, it will be the only state in the country to do so.

The Property Council, the peak body representing developers, was quick to warn that Queenslanders could expect additional costs and time delays as a result of the “implausible” regulatory framework that would add further costs and administrative burden to developers.

Public Works Minister Mick de Brenni said the government would undertake a cost-benefit analysis to ensure it would have a “real benefit to society, the community and the economy” if put in place, before making a final decision.

“We’re not going to drag our feet on considering these recommendations, but we’re not going to rush either,” he said.

The Construction, Forestry, Mining, Maritime and Energy Union has been calling for a developer licensing regime, going so far as to join forces with the Queensland Greens last year to put pressure on the state government.

Master Builders Queensland chief executive Paul Bidwell said the peak body for construction companies was more focused on ensuring developers were also roped into laws ensuring people were paid on time, though they hadn’t pushed explicitly for licensing.

The three-person developer review panel, in a report tabled on Thursday, found developers and financiers had a “primary role in setting the tone of a project and influencing payment security, solvency and building quality and safety”.

Under the plan, a developer would need to be accredited if the contract they were dealing with required a project trust ­account – meaning work valued at $10m or more for now, decreasing to $1m in 2025.

The panel steered clear of the term “licensing”, saying it would create confusion, and noted the accreditation system was intentionally different from the regulation that existed for head contractors.

To be accredited, a developer would need to be deemed a “fit and proper” person, and to maintain their status would have to undertake between two and 10 hours of personal development training each year.

They would also be subject to a code of conduct, to be drafted and endorsed by the government in collaboration with industry.

Under the recommendations, accredited developers and associated entities would be obliged to disclose to head builders, prior to signing a contract, whether they have “appropriate financial capacity to complete the project”.

This would allow the head contractors to assess whether, based on the information provided, it felt comfortable in sealing the deal.