payment but the amount stated in the instruction is less than the amount the main contractor proposed to pay under the payment schedule21; or (b) the main contractor becomes liable to pay the subcontractor beneficiary the amount claimed in the payment claim22 because he fails to give to the subcontractor beneficiary a payment schedule23. Payment Disputes The BIF Act Chapters 3, 4 and 5 were effective on 17 December 2018 and repealed the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (“BCIP Act”) and the Subcontractors’ Charges Act 1974 to improve the construction payment regime and subcontractors’ charge requirement, aiming to shape a better economy and construction productivity. Some key amendments of the BCIP Act are: Endorsement of payment claims The BCIP Act provides that a payment claim must state that it is made under the BCIP Act24. In the BIF Act, a payment claim25 is a written document that: 1) identifies the construction work or related goods and services to which the progress payment relates; and 2) states the amount (the claimed amount) of the progress payment that the claimant claims, is payable by the respondent; and 3) requests payment of the claimed amount; and 4) includes the other information prescribed by regulation. Payment claims will no longer require endorsement as payment claims under the BIF Act. A simple “tax invoice” may suffice as a payment claim26. Whilst this amendment appears to streamline the adjudication process, stakeholders found this problematic for the following reasons27 : 1) claimants are exposed to the potential risk of inadvertent service of a payment claim under the BIF Act when in fact they only intend the claim to have been made under the contract and so potentially having served more than one payment claim for each reference date; 2) respondents who unwittingly fail to appreciate that a document forwarded by a claimant is intended to be a payment claim made under the BIF Act and, thus inadvertently fail to provide a payment schedule, are exposed to serious prejudice; and 3) regular use of security of payment endorsements on invoices may assist in ensuring that claims are made promptly and serve as a means of ensuring that contractors are not being discriminated against. Removing second chance payment schedule The BCIP Act provides that if a claimant intends to start proceedings to recover an unpaid portion of the claimed amount as a debt owing to the claimant, or apply for adjudication of the payment claim, the claimant must first give the respondent notice of the claimant’s intention to take the action28. The respondent may then serve a payment schedule on the claimant within 5 business days after receiving the notice29 . This notice requirement was recommended in the Wallace Review30, which states in relation to the (then) Queensland Act: “… for a claimant to be able to proceed to make an application for summary judgment to a court without first giving the respondent a ‘second chance’ to provide a payment scheduled is unfair. Section 19 [of the (then) Queensland Act] should be amended to provide the requirement that a claimant pursuant to s.19(2)(a)(i) of the BCIPA, must first provide the respondent with a ‘second chance’ to provide a payment schedule.” In the BIF Act, this notice requirement is no longer required31. Split views were obtained from stakeholders as stated in the Murray Report. Feedback was that the consequence of having the ‘second chance’ payment schedule would undermine the adjudication process because respondents now have no incentive to respond to payment claims32 . Murray concurred with the abolishment of the ‘second chance’ payment