Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Architectural Practice Bill ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 26 November 2008. Page 916.) The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (21:21): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Architectural Practice Bill and indicate that we support this legislation. The essence of the bill is to govern the architectural profession in line with contemporary consumer protection legislation. Such governance of this important profession becomes more necessary as we attempt to encourage new and innovative developments within South Australia. The current act requires substantial amendments to take account of developments in the profession and to align it with legislation in other states, particularly as it relates to issues such as disciplinary hearings, compulsory professional development, professional indemnity assurance and the code of professional conduct. One of the qualifications to be satisfied for registration as an architect in South Australia is the passing of the architectural practice examination. These examinations are conducted half yearly, normally in April and September, and the examiners are appointed from a panel of registered architects who have been appointed to that panel by the Architects Board. As at November 2008, there were nearly 800 registered architects in South Australia and some 96 registered architecture companies. Following the 1995 COAG endorsement of the National Competition Policy agreements, the state review panel was appointed in order to implement the obligations within the agreements. The competition principles, created in partnerships with the agreement, included a review of the legislation which restricts competition. Subsequently, a recommendation of the panel was an overhaul of the 1939 Architects Act. As we can see, the act originally came into place in 1939, so that was some 70 years ago. In the opinion of the panel, sufficient consumer protection was provided by the Trade Practices Act and the Fair Trading Act. Subsequently, it was decided that further restrictions relating to the purpose, ownership and control of architecture firms found within the South Australian Architects Act were not appropriate. In summary, the bill removes the anti-competitive provisions through the following: 1.	Cancelling the by-laws relating to the endorsement of the current code of professional conduct by the Architects Board. The code restricts the form and amount of remuneration paid for architectural services as well as the amount of free work which can be performed for a client in order to demonstrate their skills. 2.	Removing restrictions on advertising. As stated, the panel was of the view that adequate consumer protection is provided by the Trade Practices Act and the Fair Trading Act. 3.	Removing restrictions on companies practising in partnership. The act will impose a new requirement to replace the outgoing restrictions: in order for a body corporate to be registered as an architectural firm, at least half the membership of the governing body must be registered architects. If the membership is an odd number, a majority of the members must be registered. This requirement is such for partners practising within a partnership arrangement. As a further quality control measure, the state review panel recommended that the Architects Board include a consumer representative in order that the board be refocused on protecting the public interest rather than that of the profession. The remaining membership would be comprised of three registered architects, who would be elected; one lawyer, nominated by the minister; one with accounting qualifications or experience, nominated by the minister; and one with regional planning or building surveying or structural qualifications or experience, also nominated by the minister. The minister would appoint the presiding member, with the Governor determining the remuneration, allowances and expenses of the board. The board's accounts would be audited annually by an auditor approved by the Auditor-General, and an annual report would be prepared and tabled in parliament. Although not appointed as Public Service employees, the board could make arrangements with the minister to utilise the skills and/or staff of the Public Service. Other main components of the bill include a register of architects and architecture businesses to be kept by the registrar. The bill includes provisions for the process of application, registration, removal and reinstatement of individuals, bodies corporate and partnerships as well as the requirement for annual fees to be paid to the board. Restrictions on the provision of architectural services include penalties for falsely representing oneself as a registered architect. Provisions for disciplinary proceedings of the board include causes for disciplinary action; powers of inspectors in investigations; obligations to report unprofessional conduct, including penalties for noncompliance; and the ability of the board to fine for unprofessional conduct or impose conditions, suspensions, cancellations or disqualifications on registrations. There are also changes to the appeals process on decisions made by the board. Previously, an appellant had to appeal to the Supreme Court. This was expensive and created an unnecessary workload for the court. The panel recommended a right of appeal to the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court. On 11 February this year I contacted Mr Andrew Davies, the Chairperson of the Architects Board of South Australia. He indicated that the board had engaged in numerous discussions with the minister since the draft bill was released in 2006. In collaboration with the Association of Consulting Architects and the Australian Institute of Architects, the board made a joint submission on the draft bill, with suggested changes to provisions relating to company registration. Subsequent to my discussions with Mr Davies, the board is satisfied with the resulting bill. It is of the view that the bill reflects the general template used for professional standards within other professions. I indicate that the opposition looks forward to the benefits of greater competition within the profession, and I look forward to reviewing the reports of the board after the first year of operation under this new legislation. The minister and I as shadow minister for urban planning are often at end of year functions where new registrations of architects are made public and they are welcomed into the profession. On several occasions the minister has indicated his promise to the profession to bring forward this review bill. He made that promise again late last year, and we see it before us, so he has kept his promise. In light of the fact that the Architects Board does seem happy and comfortable with the bill and the discussions it has had with the minister, I indicate that the opposition will support the bill. The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:29): The Greens support the second reading of this bill. I want to address my remarks in relation to the bill to the particular issue of energy efficient standards for buildings and, in particular, the star rating system. Members might recall that in parliament last year I asked the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the star rating system, and the thrust of my question was whether or not we could do better than the current five star rating. In asking that question I drew attention to a resolution of the Campbelltown City Council where it called on the South Australian government to show leadership through the introduction of a six star minimum energy efficiency standard for thermal performance in residential buildings. It also pointed out that the developments at Lochiel Park, which is often held up as a case study in energy efficiency, are around the 7½ star mark. The minister's response to my question was sympathetic to the points I was making, but the minister drew our attention to the obvious fact that we have a national system in relation to the building code, that the requirements in different climatic conditions vary and that the relevant ministers who get together on a national basis were talking about it but had not quite achieved a national standard. I wanted to take the opportunity afforded by this bill to raise the issue again, because in South Australia we can play a leadership role. The Royal Australian Institute of Architects has weighed into this debate as well. In fact, almost a year ago exactly in February 2008, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects put out a press release basically calling for the government to drive a 10 star program for housing and commercial buildings. The institute made the point that the five star rating we have at present is very much only a starting point. The Institute of Architects points out that every household in Australia produces around 14 tonnes of carbon emissions a year. The Institute of Architects believes that the national climate change building code should override and replace the various fragmented state government approaches to ensure consumers, builders, architects and government officials were singing from the same hymn sheet. That is what the architects say. One architect who weighed into this debate very recently, on 2 February this year, is South Australia's own John Maitland from the firm Energy Architecture. Speaking with Carole Whitelock, Mr Maitland said: The trouble is that five star energy efficiency is actually not energy efficient at all. It's a very low level. What you're talking about and what we desperately need is a huge improvement beyond five star. I have people in my office who live in homes that were designed within that five star bracket and they are suffering terribly. Their airconditioning is unable to bring their second storey into a temperature that is liveable at all with it on. That was in the context of the recent heatwave, but the pattern this material shows is that what seemed at the time to be cutting edge and a high standard of achievement, namely, five star energy efficiency, is now regarded as a very low standard indeed. Most recently we have the federal government's $42 billion stimulus package which, as members would recall, includes insulation of existing homes as one of its key planks. The Senate conducted a very brief inquiry into that package, and one of the experts who gave evidence to the Senate committee was Mr Alan Pears. His call was that the 20,000 new homes proposed to be built under the $42 billion package needed to be built to a seven star standard. He described it as absolutely feasible and pointed out that, especially in relation to public housing, tenants typically spend a lot more of their time at home, and that having higher energy efficient standards for those dwellings would both improve the comfort of those people and reduce their bills, as well as reducing peak energy demand. Professor Alan Pears (at Melbourne's RMIT University and a co-director of the consultancy firm Sustainable Solutions) also suggested that the bonus payments proposed under the stimulus package take the form of vouchers that could be used for the purchase of energy efficient goods and services. The purpose of my raising these issues now, as we debate the Architectural Practice Bill, is to reinforce that this profession we are regulating has to play a key role in the future design of residential buildings. They will have a key role to play in the design of new buildings and also in retrofitting old buildings. If as a state we are serious about giving our citizens every opportunity to reduce their personal greenhouse gas emissions, we need to provide people with housing that will enable them to reduce their energy demand. Only so much can be done by encouragement and education, and at the end of the day we need to regulate for standards, and a good starting point would be for South Australia to lead the nation in the compulsory raising of the standard from five star to at least seven star, and to put in place steps that encourage people to retrofit existing houses so as to reduce their energy demand. In saying that, the Greens are happy to support the second reading of the bill. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.