Reed v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2025] QCAT 447
•7 November 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Reed v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2025] QCAT 447
PARTIES:
DAVID JOHN REED (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR215-22
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
7 November 2025
HEARING DATE:
21 March 2025
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member King-Scott
ORDERS:
The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The Application is dismissed;
2. The decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – BUILDERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – Where applicant seeks review of decision to refuse Builder - Restricted to Structural Landscaping Licence – where issue is whether applicant has four years' experience in scope of work – where applicant has extensive experience in playground construction – where experience in other scope items limited, dated or poorly documented – where some scope items have no demonstrated experience – whether experience across scope of work sufficient – held, not satisfied applicant has required experience
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 3, s 31, s 34, s 35
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld), Sch 2, Pt 10Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27
Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Limited (1996) 186 CLR 389
Gill v Donald Humberstone & Co Ltd [1963] 3 All ER 180
Langton v The Independent Commission Against Corruption (2000) 49 NSWLR 164
Melbourne Pathology Pty Ltd v Minister for Human Services and Health (1996) 40 ALD 565
Meyer v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 24
Phillips v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QCAT 159
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Rehabilitation Medicine Australia Pty Ltd v NIB Health Funds Ltd(No 2) [2020] FCA 1761
Saunders v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCAT 318
Secretary, Department of Health (as successor to the Secretary, Department of Social Services) v DLW Health Services Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 108
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
McLeod KC instructed by Clutch Legal
Respondent:
Seefeld of counsel instructed by Norton Rose Solicitors
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
The Applicant, Mr David John Reed, seeks review of the decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) dated 15 July 2022 refusing his application for a Builder – Restricted to Structural Landscaping Licence (‘BRSL Licence’).
The sole issue in dispute is whether the Applicant has demonstrated four years' experience in the scope of work for the BRSL Licence class as required by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld) (‘the Regulation’).
The Applicant's technical qualifications are not in issue, nor are the financial requirements. The QBCC accepts that the Applicant's qualifications exceed the qualification requirements for the licence.[1]
[1]Schedule 2, Part 10 (3) of the Regulation and the respondent’s statement of reasons at para 44, p 22, Ex1 and T1-7 lines 22-24 and 42.
Legislative Framework
The objects of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (the ‘QBCC Act’) are set out in section 3, which relevantly provides:
The objects of this Act are—
(a) to regulate the building industry—
(i) to ensure the maintenance of proper standards in the industry;
Section 31(1)(b) of the QBCC Act provides that a person is entitled to a contractor's licence if the QBCC is satisfied that:
the applicant has the qualifications and experience required by regulation in relation to a licence of the relevant class
Section 34(1) provides that if the QBCC is satisfied that an applicant is entitled to a licence, it must issue a licence of the appropriate class.
Section 35 of the QBCC Act deals with the imposition of conditions on licences and is relevant to the interpretation of experience requirements. Section 35(2) provides that the QBCC may only grant a licence subject to a restrictive condition (restricting the scope of work) if the licence is a new class and the QBCC is satisfied the applicant does not have adequate experience in all of the scope of work for the licence. This provision suggests that, ordinarily, an applicant must have adequate experience across the scope of work.
Schedule 2, Part 10 of the Regulation sets out the requirements for a BRSL Licence:
1. Licence class
Builder restricted to structural landscaping.
2. Scope of work
(1)Prepare, fabricate and erect carports, decking, fences, gates, gazebos, ornamental structures, pergolas, ponds and water features, prefabricated sheds (including associated concrete slabs with a floor area of not more than 10m²), and retaining walls and structures.
(2)Construct artificial landform structures requiring a fabricated internal structure.
(3)Prepare site, excavate, lay paving or concrete associated with landscaping.
(4)Install irrigation for landscaping works.
(5)Install, erect and construct playground equipment.
(6)Prepare plans and specifications that are—
(a) for the licensee’s personal use; or
(b)for use in building work to be performed by the licensee personally.
(7)Construct, maintain and repair a tennis court or another sporting court, including, for example, the following—
(a)prepare or excavate the site;
(b)concrete for the construction, maintenance or repair of the court;
(c) apply materials or treatments to the surface of the court.
5. Experience requirements
(b)otherwise—4 years experience in—
(i)the scope of work for the class; or
(ii)other work the commission is satisfied is at least equivalent to experience in the scope of work for the class.
Statutory Construction
The central issue is the proper construction of the phrase "4 years experience in the scope of work for the class" in Schedule 2, Part 10, section 5(b)(i) of the Regulation.
The Applicant submits that this does not require demonstrated experience in each and every item within the scope of work. The QBCC submits that, viewed practically, an applicant must demonstrate experience across the entirety of the scope of work.
As subordinate legislation, the Regulation must be construed in accordance with ordinary principles of statutory construction. The task requires consideration of the text, context, and purpose: Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority;[2] Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue.[3]
[2](1998) 194 CLR 355, [69]–[71].
[3](2009) 239 CLR 27, [47].
Section 14A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) provides that the interpretation that best achieves the purpose of the Act is to be preferred.
In Gill v Donald Humberstone & Co Ltd[4] (‘Gill’), Lord Reid observed that regulations of a technical nature ought to be construed in light of practical considerations rather than by meticulous comparison of language. This approach has been followed in Queensland: Langton v The Independent Commission Against Corruption.[5]
[4][1963] 3 All ER 180.
[5](2000) 49 NSWLR 164, 167–8.
Schedule 2, Part 10 has both advisory and regulatory aspects. It is directed at explaining the nature of works and advising potential applicants of criteria to obtain a licence. It is addressed to practical people skilled in particular trades and should be construed practically: Secretary, Department of Health v DLW Health Services Pty Ltd.[6]
[6][2016] FCAFC 108, [93].
Relevant Tribunal Decisions
In Saunders v QBCC (‘Saunders’), Member Gardiner stated:
The granting of a builder's licence allows the builder freedom to build unsupervised. The objects of the QBCC Act include ensuring the maintenance of proper standards in the industry. It follows that the standard of experience and the breadth of experience required to licence a builder who seeks to be responsible to the Queensland community should be higher than the learning phase of a builder's career.[7]
[7][2017] QCAT 318, [34].
To similar effect, in Phillips v QBCC[8] (‘Phillips’), Member Holzberger stated:
… The maintenance of proper standards requires in my view more than merely demonstrating employment as a tradesman or labourer on building sites for the requisite period. Rather it requires an applicant to demonstrate that he has over that period carried out under supervision of a licensed person the types of tasks and responsibilities that he will be permitted to undertake without such supervision should his licence be granted.
[8][2021] QCAT 159, [15].
In Meyer v QBCC[9] (‘Meyer’) Member Olding addressed the experience requirement for a Building Design licence:
… I take the view that the Tribunal must ask whether, viewed practically, the experience as a whole would be properly characterised as at least two years of experience across the entirety of the specified scope of work.
[9][2023] QCAT 24, [11].
The Proper Construction of the Experience Requirement
I accept the Applicant's submission that Schedule 2, Part 10 does not expressly state that an applicant must demonstrate experience in each and every item of the scope of work. If the legislature had intended to impose such a requirement, it could have done so explicitly.
However, I also accept that the task is not merely to count years of employment in the building industry. The question is whether the Applicant has demonstrated experience that, viewed practically and as a whole, properly constitutes four years' experience in the scope of work for the BRSL Licence class.
This construction is consistent with:
(a)The objects of the QBCC Act, particularly ensuring maintenance of proper standards.
(b)The practical approach required by Gill.
(c)Section 35(2) of the QBCC Act, which contemplates that ordinarily an applicant should have adequate experience across the scope of work.
(d)The provision in section 5(b)(ii) for "equivalent" experience, suggesting some flexibility.
The experience requirement must be assessed having regard to the fact that, once licensed, the holder may undertake any work within the scope without supervision. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applicant has sufficient breadth and depth of experience to competently and safely undertake the range of work encompassed by the licence.
Significantly, Mr Klemm's own evidence supports a flexible approach. When asked whether failure to build a pergola would disqualify an applicant, he stated that if the applicant had the knowledge to supervise other trades in building that pergola, it would not preclude them from holding the licence.[10] This suggests experience need not be demonstrated in every item, but the Applicant must show sufficient experience across the scope to safely undertake or supervise the work.
[10]T 1-45 lines 20-40.
Applicant's Experience
Has the Applicant demonstrated experience against each component of the scope of work?
Playground Equipment
It is uncontroversial that the Applicant has extensive and superior experience in installing, erecting, and constructing playground equipment. Mr Klemm accepted this. This represents a significant component of the scope of work.
Site Preparation, Excavation, and Concrete Work
Mr Klemm accepted that the Applicant has demonstrated experience in preparing sites, excavating, and laying concrete associated with landscaping work. The evidence supports this finding.
Retaining Walls and Structures
The Applicant relies on three retaining wall projects to demonstrate experience in this aspect:
10 Parkinson Avenue (2003). This was a keystone block retaining wall approximately 22 metres long and 1.2 metres high, constructed at the Applicant's own property. The work was undertaken with the assistance of Simon Barker and David Grzegorczyk. While the Applicant could not produce the council approval, his evidence that approval was required and obtained was not challenged and I accept it. The Applicant stated he believed it was built to the relevant Australian Standard, and he was not challenged on this point.
The absence of documentary evidence is concerning, particularly given the work was undertaken 22 years ago. However, there is supporting affidavit evidence from Mr Gantis and Mr Purdy who observed the construction. Mr Baker provided technical oversight and was present when the works were carried out. While this was unpaid work at the Applicant's own property, it, nonetheless, constitutes practical experience in constructing a substantial retaining wall.
Jindalee State School (2018–2019). I reject the QBCC's submission that the sandstone blocks at Jindalee were merely "garden edging." The photographic evidence clearly shows sandstone blocks forming a wall line retaining earth behind it. The Applicant gave detailed evidence about site preparation, concreting/asphalting to create a stable surface, and calculations to assess whether the sandstone was suitable for the forces from the grade and material above it.
Mr Klemm's position that this was not a retaining wall because it does not conform to the type of large retaining walls covered by AS4678 (which covers structures up to 15 metres in height) is unpersuasive. Retaining walls come in various scales, and this work demonstrates practical experience in constructing a retaining structure appropriate to the forces involved.
3 Saltwater Avenue (2007). This was a two-tier timber sleeper retaining wall constructed at the Applicant's investment property with assistance from Mr Barker. The Applicant's evidence was that no building approval was required as it was under the relevant height requirement. While documentary evidence is limited, the photographic evidence and the Applicant's uncontested evidence about his involvement is sufficient.
Across these three projects, spanning different construction methods (keystone blocks, sandstone blocks, and timber sleepers), I am satisfied the Applicant has demonstrated adequate experience in constructing retaining walls and structures for the purposes of the BRSL Licence scope.
Carports
The Applicant relies on one carport project at Dunbogan, NSW, where he assisted Mr Barker with an insurance rebuild. The Applicant's evidence was that he rebuilt the carport structurally (excluding steel posts), including new rafters, beams, and roof sheeting.
Mr Klemm's concerns centered on the lack of documentary evidence and his view that this was only a repair to an existing carport attached to a house, rather than construction of a standalone carport. He also expressed concern about compliance with the National Construction Code and Australian Standards, though this appeared to be based primarily on insufficient photographs rather than evidence of actual non-compliance.
I accept the Applicant's evidence that building approval was in place for the insurance work.[11] The distinction Mr Klemm sought to draw between repairing a carport attached to a house versus constructing a standalone carport is not mandated by the scope of work, which simply refers to "prepare, fabricate and erect carports." The Applicant's work involved structural rebuilding, not merely cosmetic repairs.
[11]T1-22 lines 42-45.
However, I am concerned about the reliance on a single project for this scope item, particularly given the limited documentary evidence and the fact it was 19 years ago. Mr Klemm conceded he was "more satisfied" about the work being done correctly but remained partially concerned.[12] This is a weak area in the Applicant's experience profile.
[12]T1-49 line 42.
Decking
The Applicant relies on three deck projects:
Mossman Public School (2019–2021). The Applicant's evidence was that he repaired and resurfaced an existing raised deck, reinforcing it and covering it with synthetic grass. While Mr Klemm, initially, expressed concerns about the lack of engineering certificates or building approvals, these concerns appear to have stemmed from his mistaken belief the work was in Queensland rather than New South Wales.
More significantly, Mr Klemm accepted that "a certain level of experience... particularly in trade skills would be necessary" for this work. However, this was repair and resurfacing work, not construction of a new deck from the ground up.
3 Saltwater Avenue (2007). This deck was constructed at the Applicant's investment property with Mr Barker's involvement. The Applicant provided design plans, order lists, and photographs. Mr Klemm raised concerns about the bearer sizing, relying on AS 1684.2 Timber Framing Manual for residential timber-framed construction.
The Applicant criticizes Mr Klemm for importing standards applicable to house floor construction.[13] I do not accept this criticism. Mr Klemm is the only expert witness before the Tribunal qualified to express an opinion on appropriate construction standards. His evidence was that floor system componentry in house design is very similar to that of a deck, and he applied the standards accordingly.[14]
[13]T1-62 lines 37-45 and T1-63 lines 1-12.
[14]T1-62 line 8 to 37.
However, Mr Klemm conceded: "the construction of the deck seems to be indicative of general tradecraft" and "I'd have to concede" that the Applicant demonstrated experience in building a deck, setting aside the bearer sizing issue. Given this concession and the fact that the bearer sizing concern related to an abundance of caution in applying house-floor standards, I am prepared to accept this project demonstrates relevant experience, albeit from 18 years ago.
10 Parkinson Avenue (2003). This deck was constructed at the Applicant's home more than 20 years ago. Three photographs were produced during the hearing. There is minimal documentary evidence about plans, specifications, or building approvals. There is no evidence from Mr Barker about supervision or the Applicant's role.
While I accept this represents some historical experience, its evidentiary value is significantly diminished by its age and the paucity of supporting documentation.
Across these three projects, the Applicant has demonstrated some experience with decking. However, the experience is limited – one repair project, one deck built 18 years ago (where expert concerns about sizing were raised), and one deck built over 20 years ago with minimal documentation. This is an area where the breadth and currency of experience is concerning.
Prefabricated Sheds
The Applicant relies on a single shed project – a prefabricated garden shed on a concrete slab constructed at his home at 10 Parkinson Avenue in 2004, more than 20 years ago.[15] This work was not carried out under licensed supervision. The only photographic evidence is an aerial photograph.
[15]Ex1 628 at para 35.
Mr Klemm accepted that constructing this shed would fall within the scope of work for the BRSL Licence. However, the question is not whether one shed falls within the scope, but whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient experience.
Reliance on a single prefabricated shed built at the Applicant's own property over 20 years ago, without licensed supervision or substantial supporting documentation, represents a significant gap in demonstrated experience.
Fences and Gates
The Applicant relies on two projects:
4 Sunset Beach Avenue, Yaroomba. This was a short prefabricated glass pool fence with associated glass gate at the Applicant's home. Mr Barker was present only for pouring the slab. The fence involved core drilling for spigots and erecting glass panels.[16]
[16]Ex1 page 532 & 533.
Kawana Shoppingworld. This was a pool-grade fence of approximately 30 linear metres around a playground the Applicant had built, with a single outward-opening gate.
Mr Klemm accepted these fences and gates appeared to be constructed in accordance with manufacturer specifications and provided examples of the Applicant constructing fences and gates within the scope of work. However, he raised concerns that these were prefabricated items bought off-the-shelf and simply installed on site, rather than fences constructed from raw materials requiring greater trade skills.[17]
[17]Ex1 page 534.
The Applicant correctly notes that the scope of work does not distinguish between prefabricated and custom-built fences and gates. However, as noted in Saunders and Phillips, the licence permits unsupervised work across the scope, and the experience should demonstrate competence in the types of tasks and responsibilities to be undertaken without supervision.
I accept that the Applicant has demonstrated experience in preparing, fabricating, and erecting prefabricated fences and gates. While the experience is limited to prefabricated items, this, nonetheless, represents practical competence in fence and gate construction within the scope of the licence.
Gazebos and Pergolas
The Applicant candidly acknowledges he has no experience in constructing gazebos or pergolas. This represents a clear gap in experience across the scope of work.[18]
[18]Applicant’s Submissions at para 54.
Ornamental Structures
The Applicant relies on one example – a stainless steel sheet ornamental structure at his home at 4 Sunset Beach Avenue, Yaroomba. Mr Klemm accepts this is one example of construction of an ornamental structure within the scope of work. However, it is the only example, and there is no evidence from Mr Barker (the licensed builder noted as responsible) about supervision or the Applicant's role.[19]
[19]Ex1 pages 534 and 776 para 39.
Ponds and Water Features
The Applicant relies on one water feature constructed at 10 Parkinson Avenue in 2006. In oral evidence, Mr Klemm accepted this was a water feature (not merely a bird bath as he initially thought). However, he emphasized it was a pre-manufactured item brought to site and plugged in.[20]
[20]T1-78 line 10 to 22.
This represents one example of a pre-manufactured water feature constructed 19 years ago. The Applicant has demonstrated no experience in constructing ponds.
Artificial Landform Structures
The Applicant's evidence related to installation of three-dimensional rubber profiles (such as a faux crocodile) in playgrounds, and soft form products used as borders to retain loose fill.[21]
[21]T1-28 line 15 to 40.
Mr Klemm accepted that a faux crocodile in a playground may well fall within this scope item. However, similar to concerns raised with other items, these are prefabricated items installed on-site rather than structures fabricated by the Applicant.
I accept the Applicant has demonstrated some limited experience in this area through his playground work.
Irrigation for Landscaping Works
The Applicant's evidence was that he connected to an existing reticulation system for a water feature and has modified and repaired water reticulation circuits as part of playground projects.[22]
[22]T1-28 line 40 to 1-29 line 6.
This represents very limited experience in irrigation work. There is minimal documentary evidence or detail about the extent and nature of this work beyond the Applicant's oral testimony.
Tennis Courts and Other Sporting Courts
The Applicant's evidence related to experience in laying concrete slabs and applying rubber coating or Astroturf, and the Avani Greenway Exercise and Surfacing project involving preparation of plans, site excavation, and concreting six fitness stations on an exercise area.[23]
[23]T1-30 line 1 to 12.
Mr Klemm noted that tennis and sporting courts are a recent addition to the scope of work and many structural landscapers would not have actual experience on tennis courts, but the ability would be paralleled in other tasks. He noted aspects such as site preparation and concreting.
While the Applicant's evidence is limited, given this is a recent addition to the scope and Mr Klemm's acknowledgment that parallel experience may suffice, I am satisfied the Applicant has demonstrated adequate foundational experience in site preparation and concreting that is at least equivalent to experience in this scope item.
Prepare Plans and Specifications
The Applicant's evidence concerns preparation of plans and specifications for playgrounds.[24] The Applicant stated: "you cannot construct playgrounds or decks without a drawing or a plan or a guide or dimensions, and those elements have all been constructed on the basis of a plan, a set out plan, a dimension plan."
[24]Ex1 780 to 781 at para 69 to 77.
Mr Klemm reviewed plans referred to in the Applicant's second affidavit and considered they did not contain sufficient dimensions and detail to comply with Australian Standards for technical drawings.[25] He described them as providing a rudimentary understanding but not being in accordance with the Australian Standard.
[25]T1-76 lines 34-37.
The Applicant criticizes Mr Klemm for requiring compliance with Australian Standards when the Regulation does not mandate this. The QBCC responds that it would be inconsistent to require other aspects of work to comply with standards but not plans and specifications, and that licensing concerns maintenance of standards in the industry.
I accept that Australian Standards provide an objective benchmark for assessing competence and that building work should generally comply with relevant standards to maintain proper standards in the industry (consistent with s 3 of the QBCC Act). However, the scope of work refers to plans and specifications "for the licensee's personal use" or "for building work to be performed by the licensee personally" – this suggests a more practical, worksite-oriented approach rather than formal architectural drawings.
The Applicant has demonstrated practical experience in preparing plans and specifications for playground construction that have been successfully implemented. While these may not meet formal Australian Standard requirements for technical drawings, they demonstrate competence in translating design concepts into buildable plans for his personal use. I am satisfied this meets the requirement for this scope item.
Overall Assessment
Has each component of the scope of work above reviewed practically and as a whole, demonstrated the requisite four years' experience in the scope of work for the BRSL Licence class?
The Applicant has clearly demonstrated:
(a)Extensive and superior experience in playground equipment installation and construction;
(b)Adequate experience in site preparation, excavation, and concrete work associated with landscaping;
(c)Adequate experience in constructing retaining walls and structures across different construction methods;
(d)Some experience in prefabricated fence and gate construction;
(e)Limited experience in artificial landform structures (through playground work);
(f)Limited experience in tennis courts/sporting courts (through parallel site preparation and concreting work);
(g)Practical experience in preparing plans and specifications for his own use.
The Applicant has demonstrated limited or minimal experience in:
(a)Carports (one project, 19 years old, repair nature);
(b)Decking (repair work, projects 18-20 years old, expert concerns raised);
(c)Prefabricated sheds (one project, 20+ years old, no supervision);
(d)Ornamental structures (one example);
(e)Ponds and water features (one pre-manufactured water feature, 19 years old, no pond experience);
(f)Irrigation (very limited modification/repair work).
The Applicant has no demonstrated experience in gazebos and pergolas.
The following criticisms can be made about the applicant’s experience:
(a)Many projects relied upon are 18–22 years old, raising questions about currency of experience;
(b)Several projects were at the Applicant's own properties under informal "reciprocal" arrangements rather than paid commercial work under licensed supervision;
(c)Documentary evidence is often sparse, with limited plans, specifications, approvals, or verification;
(d)There is no evidence from Simon Barker, who was involved in many projects, about his supervision or the Applicant's role;
(e)Many projects involve installation of prefabricated items rather than construction from raw materials;
(f)The Assessment Manual (while not binding) indicates experience should be verifiable, under licensed supervision, and of a competent standard – much of the evidence falls short.
The QBCC's submission that the Applicant has experience primarily in playground equipment, with very limited experience across most other scope items, and no experience in some items, is largely correct.
The question is whether this is sufficient. The Applicant's case essentially rests on the proposition that experience need not be demonstrated across every item of the scope, and that significant expertise in one major area (playgrounds) combined with some limited experience in various other areas is sufficient.
Resolution
I must construe the experience requirement having regard to:
(a)The text of the Regulation (which does not expressly require experience in every scope item);
(b)The objects of the QBCC Act (maintaining proper standards in the industry);
(c)The practical approach required by Gill;
(d)The principle that licensing permits unsupervised work across the scope (Saunders, Phillips);
(e)Section 35(2) of the QBCC Act (suggesting adequate experience across the scope is normally required);
(f)The availability of equivalent experience under s 5(b)(ii) of the Regulation.
The approach in Meyer asking whether, viewed practically, the experience as a whole properly constitutes the required years of experience across the entirety of the scope - provides useful guidance. However, "entirety" must be read with the practical approach in Gill and the flexibility for equivalent experience.
Mr Klemm's evidence is particularly instructive. He accepted that if an applicant lacked experience in an item (such as pergola construction) but had trade knowledge and the ability to supervise others in that work, it would not preclude licensing. This suggests that:
(a)Experience need not be personally hands-on in every scope item;
(b)Trade knowledge and supervisory capability across the scope are relevant;
(c)The key question is whether the applicant can competently and safely undertake or supervise the work.
However, Mr Klemm's flexibility was premised on the applicant having trade qualifications and knowledge. The Applicant in this case does not have carpentry or building trade qualifications (though his qualifications exceed the minimum requirement). His knowledge and competence must be demonstrated through actual experience.
The critical flaw in the Applicant's case is not that he lacks experience in one or two scope items (such as gazebos and pergolas), but rather:
(a)His experience across many scope items is minimal, outdated, poorly documented, or of questionable quality;
(b)Much of his work was not under licensed supervision in a commercial context;
(c)Key projects lack verification from the supervising licensed builder (Mr Barker);
(d)He has not demonstrated the breadth of experience necessary to safely undertake unsupervised work across the scope;
(e)Currency concerns arise where significant reliance is placed on work from 18–22 years ago.
While the Regulation does not specify a time limit for when experience must be obtained, currency is relevant to whether experience demonstrates current competence. Relying heavily on work from two decades ago, without substantial recent reinforcement, undermines confidence that the Applicant can currently competently perform the work.
The principle in Saunders at [34] is particularly apt:
The granting of a builder's licence allows the builder freedom to build unsupervised. ... It follows that the standard of experience and the breadth of experience required to licence a builder who seeks to be responsible to the Queensland community should be higher than the learning phase of a builder's career. Evidence of actual experience in such matters as, for example, dealing with clients, planning and drawings, actual higher order building skills and supervision of staff and subcontractors in more than a cursory way is integral to the granting of a licence.
The Applicant's experience profile suggests someone with deep expertise in one area (playgrounds) and scattered limited experience in various other areas, much of it gained informally on personal properties many years ago. This does not demonstrate the breadth and standard of experience necessary to safely undertake unsupervised structural landscaping work across the scope of the licence.
Conclusion
Applying a practical approach to the construction of the experience requirement, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated four years' experience in the scope of work for the BRSL Licence class.
While the Applicant has extensive experience in playground construction and adequate experience in some foundational aspects (site preparation, excavation, concrete work, retaining walls), his experience across the broader scope is:
(a)Too limited in many areas;
(b)Too dated in key areas (particularly carports, decking, sheds);
(c)Too poorly documented and verified;
(d)Insufficiently demonstrates the breadth of competence required to safely undertake unsupervised work across the scope.
The objects of the QBCC Act require maintenance of proper standards in the building industry. Granting a licence on this experience profile would not adequately serve that object.
This is not to diminish the Applicant's undoubted expertise in playground construction. However, the BRSL Licence encompasses a significantly broader scope of structural landscaping work, and the Applicant has not demonstrated adequate experience across that scope.
I note that the QBCC has discretion under s 35(2) of the QBCC Act to grant a licence with restrictive conditions where an applicant does not have adequate experience in all of the scope of work, but only where the licence is a "new class of licence under section 42A(1)(a)." There is no evidence before me that the BRSL Licence meets this criterion, and accordingly, the Tribunal does not have power to grant a licence with restrictions on the scope of work.
The decision under review is affirmed.
0
7
3