Australian regulators weekly wrap — Monday, 12 August 2019



The Australian regulators weekly wrap is a weekly alerter which quickly sets out five noteworthy developments from the past week. It is designed to help you in keeping up to speed with what is happening in Australian financial services regulation.

Follow me here or connect with me on LinkedIn if you would like to receive these alerters or if you would like any further information.

  1. Responsible lending: ASIC’s unusual public hearing into responsible lending standards – which essentially requires lenders to determine whether credit sought is suitable for a particular consumer – kicked off in Sydney today. The hearings follow ASIC’s receipt of written submissions (and a court case against Westpac in relation to its reliance on the HEM benchmark, which is used to estimate living expenses) and is designed to assist the regulator in revamping its guidance in this area. Commissioner Hayne declined to recommend a ban on lenders from using the HEM benchmark, though he did opine that the current legislation requires more than reliance on it alone. BOQ appeared to agree today, stating that the existing rules were too subjective. Westpac favoured more principles-based regulatory guidance, rather than prescriptive rules. A hybrid approach, with a “safe harbour” of prescriptive rules i.e. do this and the firm will be compliant, but an overarching principles-based component i.e. if the firm thinks it can reasonably justify operating outside the prescriptive rules then it can do so, was another option put forward in the written submissions. There is a balance between protecting consumers’ interests while not unnecessarily impeding lending (including through the increased costs of compliance which may be passed on); ASIC’s guidance will be greatly anticipated. The hearing resumes on 19 August 2019.
  2. Whistleblowing: the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act 2019 (Cth) received assent in March 2019 and vastly expands existing protections / remedies for eligible whistleblowers, no longer requires that whistleblowers need to act in “good faith” to receive protection, permits anonymous disclosures and requires public companies and “large proprietary companies” to have mandatory whistleblower policies in place by January 2020. The impact of the legislation may be significant, and will affect regulatory practice in this area e.g. given firms are now prohibited from disclosing identifying information about an whistleblower’s identity (now criminal offence) how do they effectively investigate, report and punish wrongdoing? ASIC has just released a consultation paper (CP 321) and draft Regulatory Guide seeking feedback on whistleblowing policies. It is understandably broad in nature, which underscores the scale of work that affected firms have ahead of them and the time / expertise that will be required in getting it right. For e.g., the draft Regulatory Guide states: [ASIC] encourage[s] entities to follow best practice in investigations. The investigation should be thorough, objective, fair and independent, while preserving the confidentiality of the investigation [and whistleblower]”. While challenging, there are lessons to be had from US investigatory practice which is more advanced than Australia’s in this area. Submissions are required by 18 September 2019.
  3. UK Serious Fraud Office / corporate cooperation: not an Australian regulatory issue per se, though a development perhaps worth mentioning given the increasingly sharp tone of Australia’s regulators regarding legal professional privilege (and as they watch the UK closely); the UK SFO has released guidance on what it expects firms to do so as to receive co-operation credit. Waiving privilege over investigatory materials, updating the SFO on key developments regarding witnesses e.g. disciplinary proceedings and providing information on third parties will be all be deemed cooperative in the SFO’s eyes. The guidance also sets out how to gather, hold and produce evidence so that the “crime-scene isn’t trampled” (a common regulatory complaint of lawyers’ internal investigations.) No doubt a copy of the guidance, which is actually quite readable, is sitting on several Australian regulators’ desks.
  4. APRA fines: the prudential regulator has fined Westpac and two subsidiaries for historical delays in data reporting (in one case up to 37 days); a cumulative penalty of $1,501,500. It is the largest fine possible. The data falls within APRA’s new Economic and Financial Statistics Collection Program. Consistent with industry predictions of a greater focus on timely and accurate information being provided to regulators (itself a focus of the Royal Commission), APRA deputy chair John Lonsdale stated “By issuing these infringement notices, APRA wants to send a strong message to industry that compliance with our reporting standards is mandatory, and cannot be considered secondary to other business priorities.”
  5. Climate change reporting: a hot topic during AGM season, ASIC has clarified its existing regulatory guidance with respect to the disclosure of climate change related matters. ASIC Commissioner John Price has stated “While disclosure is critical, it is but one aspect of prudent corporate governance practices in connection with the mitigation of legal risks. Directors should be able to demonstrate that they have met their legal obligations in considering, managing and disclosing all material risks that may affect their companies. This includes any risks arising from climate change, be they physical or transitional risks.” (Emphasis retained.) It is interesting wording, given the “stepping stones” approach ASIC was successful with in ASIC v Vocation i.e. breach of continuous disclosure = breach of directors’ duties ≠ reliance on business judgment rule. (Here is an earlier article I contributed to on the topic of climate changes and directors’ duties, but not continuous disclosure per se.) Of perhaps greater note is ASIC’s statement that it will conduct surveillance of climate change related disclosure practices by selected listed companies in the coming year…

Do you think I overlooked something or would like more information? If so, please send me a message!

(These views are my own and do not constitute legal advice. Photo credit Tom Wheatley)

Australian regulators weekly wrap — Monday, 5 August 2019



The Australian regulators weekly wrap is a weekly alerter which quickly sets out five noteworthy developments from the past week. It is designed to help you in keeping up to speed with what is happening in Australian financial services regulation.

Follow me here or on LinkedIn if you would like to receive these alerters or if you would like any further information.

  1. Unfair contracts terms: another week, another big development — this week it is Treasury’s release of the exposure draft of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Unfair Terms in Insurance Contracts) Bill 2019 (Bill) which extends the unfair contract terms protections to insurance agreements. (In certain settings, a term in a financial agreement is unfair and void if it causes significant imbalance in rights, is not reasonably necessary to protect legitimate interests and it would cause detriment — see the helpful page 7 of the EM.) There are two components to the Bill: first, amendments to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) to enable the regime; second, amendments to the ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) to tailor the regime. At present, the “main subject matter” of a finance agreement is exempt from the UCT regime — here the main subject matter will be limited by the description in the insurance policy (which will prove trickier than it sounds). Premiums will be exempt, provided they are transparent. Finally, third party beneficiaries of insurance contracts will be able to bring actions against insurers under the UCT regime. Long expected, nevertheless there is a lot for insurers to take in — and against the backdrop of the Design and Distribution / Product Intervention Powers (and BEAR down the line) as well!
  2. Digital platforms inquiry: the ACCC published its final report on the digital platforms inquiry which sets out its views on the impact of online search engines, social media and digital content aggregators on competition in the media and advertising services markets. In addition to making findings about concentration in those markets i.e. Google and Facebook, the report contains a number of recommendations. The most noteworthy ones include: an increase in focus on investigations and enforcement (continuing the current regulatory trend); strengthening of privacy laws; a tort for the serious invasion of privacy; prohibitions for certain unfair contract terms (not just making them voidable) & practices; IDRS frameworks for digital platforms. It is a interesting read, and will have far-reaching effects. The executive summary is here and I highly recommend it as weekly reading — public submissions close on 12 September 2019.
  3. Legal privilege: the Law Council of Australia has stated that it is working with the Australia Taxation Office to develop a new protocol to mitigate disputes around legal professional privilege. The announcement follows reporting in the Australian Financial Review (26 June 2019) which recorded that ATO Deputy Commissioner Mark Konza had said that taxpayers and businesses claiming privilege unreasonably should expect the ATO seek resolutions through the courts but that the ATO had “no plans to criminally prosecute lawyers over legal professional privilege claim”.
  4. Boardroom psychologists: ASIC’s trial of placing psychologists into boardrooms will now be looked at by a Parliamentary Committee. Liberal Senator James Paterson, the new chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, is quoted in the Australian Financial Review (30 July 2019) as stating “Their focus on culture and sending psychologists into boardrooms doesn’t seem consistent to me with what the royal commission asked them to do… regulating conduct and behaviour to enforce the law seems more like a direct route to address the problems”. The Senator is focused on reducing red tape in the sector.
  5. APRA biennial survey: APRA released its biennial survey from regulated entities and knowledgeable observers. Both groups “strongly believe that APRA’s supervision and enforcement of prudential requirements is benefiting the Australian community, strengthening their entity and positively impacting on their industry”. But almost all changes observed from the last survey in 2017 are downward, which is perhaps unsurprising in the wake of the Hayne Royal Commission.

Do you think I overlooked something or would like more information? If so, please send me a message!

(These views are my own and do not constitute legal advice. Photo credit Tom Wheatley)

Australian regulators weekly wrap — Monday, 29 July 2019



The Australian regulators weekly wrap is a weekly alerter which quickly sets out five noteworthy developments from the past week. It is designed to help you in keeping up to speed with what is happening in Australian financial services regulation.

Follow me here or connect with me on LinkedIn if you would like to receive these alerters or if you would like any further information.

  1. Remuneration: APRA released draft prudential standard CPS 511 Remuneration (with an accompanying discussion paper) which proposes to introduce heightened requirements on firm’s remuneration and accountability arrangements. A response to the Hayne Royal Commission recommendations, it contains some very significant reforms including: 1) financial performance measures must not comprise more than 50 % of performance criteria; 2) minimum deferral periods for variable remuneration of up to seven years in large ADIs (which would bring Australia closer to the UK’s position); and 3) boards must approve and actively oversee remuneration policies for all employees. The new standards are designed to complement the BEAR, and in the words of APRA Deputy Chair John Lonsdale: “Limiting the influence of financial performance metrics in determining variable remuneration will encourage executives to put greater focus on non-financial risks, such as culture and governance”. The consultation period will close on 22 October 2019.
  2. Why not litigate”: ASIC Commissioner Hughes has told the Australian Financial Review (28 July 2019) that more cases are in the works and the public should brace itself as they come to light. There are already around 25 active investigations flowing from the Hayne Royal Commission. Expect ASIC’s separate “Office of Enforcement” to focus on executives and company directors as it continues its more aggressive approach. And hopefully the pendulum does not swing so far in favour of punitive enforcement that ASIC’s overarching regulatory aims are compromised (for more detail there, see a paper I delivered last week at the Australian Centre for Financial Studies’ annual conference.)
  3. ASIC v. ANZ : ASIC commenced proceedings in the Federal Court against ANZ for charging periodic fees between August 2003 and 23 February 2016 which ASIC alleges ANZ was not entitled to charge. It also alleges ANZ first became aware there was a risk it was not entitled to charge these fees in July 2011. ASIC claims ANZ breached s 912A of the Corporations Act 2001 by failing to provide its services “efficiently, honestly and fairly” including as it provided incomplete or misleading information when it reported the issue to ASIC in February 2014. And that ANZ breached the ASIC Act 2001 (ASIC Act), by engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct, made false or misleading representations and engaged in unconscionable conduct in circumstances connected with its charging of the fees and subsequent remediation exercise. Some interesting legal subject matter, in particular connected with qualitative reporting obligations — ASIC’s Concise Statement can be accessed here.
  4. Securities lending: ASIC has released a consultation paper (CP 319) on securities agents’ disclosure obligations. Where an owner of securities transfers them to a borrower, who has an obligation to return the securities or equivalent securities, often the transaction is facilitated by a securities agent. Sometimes these agents are caught by s 671B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which requires disclosure of a substantial holding in a listed firm. As they act on instructions, this can be an onerous obligation; ASIC’s consultation is geared towards proposed legislative relief. Submissions close on 9 September 2019.
  5. Psychologists in the boardroom: The Australian Psychologist Society has defended ASIC’s move to placed psychologists in the boardroom, noting that organisational psychologists have been ranked the fastest growing profession in the United States (Australian Financial Review, 23 July 2019). The President of Society writes “Typically, organisational psychologists use data, benchmarking and a rigorous understanding of human nature and ecosystems to improve workplace performance, wellbeing and sustainability, and prevent organisational dysfunction or failure”. Regardless of which side of that argument individuals fall on, arguably the first considerations should be structural i.e. clarification of reporting lines, confidentiality and legal professional privilege.

Do you think I overlooked something or would like more information? If so, please send me a message!

(These views are my own and do not constitute legal advice. Photo credit Tom Wheatley)

Australian regulators weekly wrap — Monday, 22 July 2019



The Australian regulators weekly wrap is a weekly alerter which quickly sets out five noteworthy developments from the past week. It is designed to help you in keeping up to speed with what is happening in Australian financial services regulation.

Follow me here or connect with me on LinkedIn if you would like to receive these alerters or if you would like any further information.

  1. APRA capability report: Graeme Samuel’s external review of APRA was released and contained some sharp observations, the sum of which was that APRA’s internal culture and regulatory approach need to change (and it needed to have a more forceful supervision and enforcement approach). It also made bold recommendations. The eye-catching ones were that APRA should engage in more in-depth governance and culture reviews (like it did for CBA), have powers to veto the appointment of directors and executives of regulated firms and that its penalties framework should be revisited. APRA has supported all 19 recommendations — if you read one regulatory development this week, make it this one. It will be with us for some time…
  2. Life insurance / CCI: ASIC has proposed to ban unsolicited telephone sales of life insurance and consumer credit insurance stating that “such a ban would prevent the sale of complex insurance products which consumers do not need, want or understand.” It has released a consultation paper (CP 317), which is directed to insurers and ASFLs who sell these products without providing personal advice (within the statutory meaning). This move should be no surprise given the Hayne Royal Commission’s legislative recommendations to this effect and ASIC’s recent research report (REP 622), which you can read about in last week’s update; still, it shows that ASIC is not prepared to waste any time getting things done. The consultation period ends on 29 August 2019.
  3. Hayne Royal Commission: according to the Australian Financial Review (18 July 2019) the Federal Government says that there only a chance at best that all the relevant 76 recommendations from the Hayne Royal Commission will be legislated by the end of the year. The Morrison Government has already legislated some of the recommendations, most notably to increase penalties for corporate misconduct. But there are many yet to come through, which is perhaps understandable given the inherent complexity i.e. BEAR was effected through a change to the Banking Act 1959 (Cth); how will it be efficiently transposed to all AFSL’s as promised? Labor’s exhortations to get on with the process aside, rushed lawmaking rarely ends well (and the consultation periods seem to be getting shorter), so my personal view is that taking time to get things right is fine.
  4. Ratings downgrades: following APRA’s move to increase the capital requirements on Westpac, ANZ and NAB due to improvements required in the management of their non-financial risks, Fitch Ratings downgraded its outlook for both Westpac and ANZ. It moved them from “stable” to “negative” stating APRA’s decision “indicates material shortcomings in operational risk management…’, however, noted that these outlooks may revert if operations and compliance risks could be resolved without a substantial negative impact to earnings.
  5. AUSTRAC: Australia’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regulator has a significant part of its activities financed through an industry contribution levy (IC levy). The IC levy is supposed to raise revenue equivalent to AUSTRAC’s appropriation whilst minimising the regulatory impact on small business; there is a $100 million domestic earnings threshold. AUSTRAC has just released a review of its financing activities, which noted that many stakeholders had complained the current arrangement was inequitable and that the threshold should be lowered. AUSTRAC’s position was that there was no strong argument to change the status on equitable grounds, however, it will collect earnings data from smaller firms to better consider the issue at a later point in time.

Do you think I overlooked something or would like more information? If so, please send me a message!

(These views are my own and do not constitute legal advice. Photo credit Tom Wheatley)

Australian regulators weekly wrap — Monday, 15 July 2019



The Australian regulators weekly wrap is a weekly alerter which quickly sets out five noteworthy developments from the past week. It is designed to help you in keeping up to speed with what is happening in Australian financial services regulation.

Follow me here or connect with me on LinkedIn if you would like to receive these alerters or if you would like any further information.

  1. Production intervention: ASIC is not wasting any time — hot off the heels of its recent consultation paper as to how it should best use its new product invention power (read more about that in the 1 July 2019 alerter here) ASIC has released a consultation paper (CP 316)on its first proposed use of the power. It is looking at the short term credit industry; specifically, where fees are charged under separate contracts which ultimately add up to well over 100% of the loan value. Submissions close by 30 July 2019.
  2. Culture capital: APRA has increased NAB, ANZ and Westpac’s minimum capital requirements by $500M each (following a $1B capital add-on to CBA last year) citing the “ need to strengthen non-financial risk management, ensure accountabilities are clear, cascaded and enforced, address long-standing weaknesses and enhance risk culture”. This move follows APRA’s release of its information paper on 22 May 2019 on the financial services industry’s self-assessments of governance, culture and accountability. A useful read, that information paper effectively set out that irrespective of size, complexity or industry many institution are having a difficult time identifying, managing and mitigating non-financial risk.
  3. Consumer credit insurance: ASIC has released a report (REP 622) which found that the design / sale of consumer credit insurance has consistently failed consumers (this may not surprise the many UK practitioners who have had experience with mis-sold PPI products). In particular, the report states that CCI is extremely poor value for money; associated with sales practices which cause harm e.g. CCI was sold to ineligible customers; consumers were charged for deductions where their loan had expired; hardship claims under CCI policies are made without appropriate consumer-focused processes for many lenders. ASIC is undertaking investigations, monitoring remediation schemes and is considering completely banning the sale of CCI by telephone. But further, according to ASIC Commissioner Sean Hughes “If we do not see early, significant and sustained improvement in the design and sale of consumer credit insurance, our next steps may involve the deployment of our new product intervention power where we see a risk of significant consumer detriment”
  4. AFCA: 58 AFSLs and 217 ACLs who had previously held external membership with an external dispute resolution scheme had not obtained AFCA membership since it commenced operations on 1 November 2018. Following ASIC’s involvement, 35% of those entitles either cancelled their licences voluntarily or had ASIC cancel or suspend it for them. All ASFLs and ACLs are required to obtain AFCA membership; critically, it has a lot more powers than its predecessors e.g. FOS. It has a higher monetary jurisdiction than FOS, a broad and new directions power in respect of “systemic issues” (and is expected to work closely with ASIC here) and expects to be more involved in remediation programs. Watch this space…
  5. Licence scrutiny: judging by the number of media releases each week, ASIC is doing more work cancelling licences or banning individuals. (Example here.) This appears to fit in with its more hawkish enforcement outlook, as encapsulated in ASIC Chair James Shipton’s statement at this year’s annual forum in May 2019 “… we are looking to use the full extent of our new penalties and powers through the prism of ‘why not litigate’”.

Do you think I overlooked something or would like more information? If so, please send me a message!

(These views are my own and do not constitute legal advice. Photo credit Tom Wheatley)

Australian regulators weekly wrap — Monday, 8 July 2019



The Australian regulators weekly wrap is a weekly alerter which quickly sets out five noteworthy developments from the past week. It is designed to help you in keeping up to speed with what is happening in Australian financial services regulation.

Follow me here or connect with me on LinkedIn if you would like to receive these alerters or if you would like any further information.

  1. Foreign licensing relief: ASIC released a consultation paper (CP 315) proposing to provide licensing relief i.e. from the need to hold an AFSL for foreign financial services firms providing funds management advice to Australian professional investors. ASIC decided against giving relief for situations of reverse solicitation i.e. where the investor seeks advice from the foreign adviser, citing lack of information / monitoring concerns. The new regime will affect the current exemptions in place and is narrower. Foreign firms who service — and intend to continue servicing — Australian clients are well advised to revisit their licensing requirements in light of what is proposed. Submissions on the consultation paper are required by 9 August 2019.
  2. Car insurance investigations: ASIC released a report somewhat amusingly entitled “Roadblocks and roundabouts” setting out its research that insurer investigations into car insurance claims suspected of being fraudulent are leading to poor consumer outcomes, including through excessive interview and documentation requirements. Metrics-wise, ASIC found that while only a small proportion of claims are investigated, for those that are over 70% of them are found to be valid. It has called for general insurers to implement better standards, improve written communication to consumers and also how claims are selected for investigation. ASIC has also flagged that the (recently reviewed) General Insurance Code of Practice could be further improved.
  3. Mortgage lending: in good news for personal borrowers, following consultation on Prudential Practice Guide APG 223 APRA announced that it no longer expects ADIs to assess home loan applications using a minimum interest rate of 7%. ADIs can instead utilise a revised interest rate buffer of 2.5% over the loan’s interest rate. (Though, of course, individual ADIs can and generally will impose higher serviceability thresholds.) Said APRA Chair Wayne Byres: “The changes being finalised today are not intended to signal any lessening in the importance APRA places on the maintenance of sound lending standards. This updated guidance provides ADIs with greater flexibility to set their own serviceability floors, while maintaining a measure of prudence through the application of an appropriate buffer that reflects the inherent uncertainty in credit assessments.”
  4. AFS applications: a busy week for ASIC on the licensing front — it released a new information sheet (INFO 240) to assist applicants on recent changes to its financial services licensing procedures. Most applicants will now need to provide additional information and documents as part of their application, focusing on the individuals running the business e.g. national criminal checks. Fitting in with the global regulatory zeitgeist of greater regulatory focus on individuals (e.g. US Yates Memo, UK SMCR, HK MIC, etc), ASIC stated that the new information will enable it “to ascertain whether it has reason to believe an applicant is likely to contravene its legislative obligations, including to deliver financial services ‘efficiently, honestly and fairly’ and to ensure that the responsible officers of a body corporate applicant are of good fame or character”.
  5. Responsible lending: ASIC’s unusual public hearings on responsible lending are set to take place in August 2019 in Melbourne and Sydney (you can read more about them in last week’s alerter). Writing in The Australian today, Commissioner Hughes has said that the hearings are “not about increasing requirements, but rather clarifying and updating our guidance” (expected before 2020) and that “this is an information-gathering exercise, not an inquisitorial pursuit or ‘grilling’ as some speculation as suggested. Attendees will be invited, not ‘hauled in’ involuntarily.” Hayne Royal Commission public hearing they may not be, however, these hearings will certainly attract a great deal of commentary.

Do you think I overlooked something or would like more information? If so, please send me a message!

(These views are my own and do not constitute legal advice. Photo credit Tom Wheatley)

Australian regulators weekly wrap — Monday, 1 July 2019



The Australian regulators weekly wrap is a weekly alerter which quickly sets out five noteworthy developments from the past week. It is designed to help you in keeping up to speed with what is happening in Australian financial services regulation.

Follow me here or connect with me on LinkedIn if you would like to receive these alerters or if you would like any further information.

  1. Responsible lending: following ASIC’s release of its consultation paper in February 2019 in respect of updating its guidance on responsible lending (RG 209), ASIC announced that it intends to hold public hearings concerned with responsible lending practices (a prominent theme in the recent Hayne Royal Commission). An unusual occurrence, the hearings will take place in August 2019 and feature groups / individuals who provided a written submission to ASIC in response to the consultation paper. 64 of the submissions have now been made public.
  2. Whistleblowers: corporate whistleblowers — being those eligible as such because they meet certain criteria (always the first consideration) — now have stronger protections under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) as firms will commit an offence by revealing their identify or by causing them “detriment” and be liable for heavy civil penalties / compensation. Public companies and large private companies now have until 1 January 2020 to embed a compliant whistleblowing policy. Updating this framework can prove complex and take time, so affected companies should start now.
  3. BEAR: APRA has outlined its proposed approach to end-to-end product responsibility under the Banking Executive Accountability Regime (Australia’s version of the UK SMCR) to ADIs, proposing that they be required to identify and register an accountable person to hold end-to-end product responsibility for each product the ADI offers to its customers, including retail, business and institutional customers. The public consultation is open until 23 August 2019 for what will undoubtedly prove tricky accountability statements to draft given APRA “proposes a broad interpretation of what is in scope of end-to-end accountability, including not only all steps in the design, delivery and maintenance of all products offered to customers…but also extending to issues such as customer remediation, linkages to IT systems and data quality, outsourcing, and incentive arrangements”
  4. Product intervention: staying with financial (and credit) products, ASIC released a consultation paper as to how it proposes to wield its new product intervention power, a broad and flexible proactive power for it to intervene when a product has resulted, will result or is likely to result in significant detriment to consumers. (Other international jurisdictions will already be familiar with this power.) Among other areas, the paper sets out ASIC’s proposals as to the guidance it will give the industry on the meaning of consumer detriment and how it will arise. It also deals with the nature of the consultation process that ASIC proposes to undertake with firms in its cross-hairs. Public consultation is open until 7 August 2019.
  5. Code of Banking Practice: ASIC has approved an updated version of the Australian Banking Association’s new voluntary Banking Code of Practice. This is the first wave of updates to the code, and involves prohibition on charging fees for services to deceased customers and commitments around the provision of valuations to small business customers. The second wave of changes, which ASIC will decide on later this year, will be the more significant as they will be designed to address the recommendations of the Hayne Royal Commission. And in that regard, one of Commissioner Hayne’s more significant recommendations was that “there must be adequate means to identify, correct and prevent systemic failures in applying the code … in order to do that, some provisions of the codes should be picked up and applied as law” (Emphasis added.)

Do you think I overlooked something or would like more information? If so, please send me a message!

(These views are my own and do not constitute legal advice. Photo credit Tom Wheatley)