Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Bills Architectural Practice (Continuing Professional Development) Amendment Bill Architectural Practice (Continuing Professional Development) Amendment Bill Architectural Practice (Continuing Professional Development) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council Minister for Trade The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (15:25): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading explanation and detailed explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading them. Leave granted. This bill makes amendment to the Architectural Practice Act 2009, mandating continuing professional development as a condition of ongoing registration as a practising architect in South Australia. All state and territory boards agreed to a national framework for continuing professional development in 2006. This set the framework for continuing professional development. The provisions of the amendment will apply to all practising architects. The Architectural Practice Board of South Australia will develop the rules for continuing professional development in South Australia once the bill has passed. This amendment is supported by the Architectural Practice Board of South Australia, the Australian Institute of Architects—South Australia Chapter and the Association of Consulting Architects (South Australia), and will bring South Australia in line with other states in Australia where continuing professional development is mandated (Queensland, NSW, Tasmania, WA, Victoria forthcoming). The mandating of continuing professional development will ensure architects maintain their knowledge and skills relevant to their architectural practice and their provision of architectural services to consumers. Explanation of Clauses Explanation of Clauses Part 1—Preliminary 1—Short title 2—Commencement 3—Amendment provisions These clauses are formal. Part 2—Amendment of Architectural Practice Act 2009 4—Amendment of section 3—Interpretation This clause inserts a new definition of professional development rules, consequential on the amendment in clause 7 of the measure. 5—Amendment of section 13—Functions of Board This clause makes a number of amendments to allow the Architectural Practice Board to make rules (the professional development rules) prescribing requirements for continuing professional development for registered architects. 6—Amendment of section 15—Delegations This amendment inserts a reference to the professional development rules to be enacted by the amendments in clause 5. 7—Insertion of section 31A This clause inserts a new section as follows: 31A—Requirement for further education and training The proposed section provides that a registered architect must, in each year of registration, undertake or obtain further education, training and experience required or determined under the professional development rules. A registered architect who fails to do so is not entitled to be registered in accordance with the Act. The section provides for the circumstances in which the Architectural Practice Board may exempt an architect from the requirement to undertake further education and training. 8—Amendment of section 32—Fees and returns The clause inserts a provision requiring a registered architect to provide to the Board, along with their registration and annual fee, a form approved by the Board that contains information that, under the professional development rules, the registered architect is required to provide to the Board as to compliance with the professional development rules (or with the terms or conditions of an exemption from the rules). The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN Legislative Council The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (15:26): I rise today to offer Labor support for this bill and to make a short contribution to the debate. The support is based on Labor's recognition of the importance of continuing professional development in the architecture profession, an industry that of course has a significant influence on our state's built form and environment. I note that under this bill the professional development framework will be developed by the Architectural Practice Board of South Australia, in accordance with similar bodies already established in other states. Where it makes sense to align regulatory frameworks across Australia's federation, then that is something we should try to do. There are two further points of interest that connect to other matters also before the parliament. This bill introduces an ongoing professional development framework for registered practising architects in order to guarantee their confidence. This is a good thing. The public should have confidence in professionals providing services, particularly when their work directly impacts upon the public realm. In keeping with this principle, I look forward to the government's support for the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Transparency) Amendment Bill 2019, a bill I introduced into this chamber in October. The transparency bill, similar to this bill, contains provisions that require the professional accreditation of State Commission Assessment Panel members in order to bolster public confidence in the panel's deliberations and decision-making. The principle applied in both bills is the same: professional development and accreditation bolsters public confidence in professional standards. With this in mind, I am sure I can look forward to the government's support for the transparency bill. The second point I wish to emphasise also concerns public confidence in the building industry. I note that in the minister's second reading explanation in the other place he made reference to the national Shergold Weir Report into building confidence and the role this bill has in bolstering public confidence in registered architects. I am sure that we are all aware that public confidence in the building industry has taken a hit in recent times, with revelations that many privately certified buildings contain flammable cladding and other features that do not comply with the Building Code of Australia. In this light, requiring ongoing professional development of registered practising architects is certainly a worthy initiative, but I also urge the government to reconsider the extension of private assessment in the planning system, which has been included in the development assessment regulations tabled in this chamber in July this year. Labor has already moved a disallowance motion against those regulations, and I note that public confidence in the building industry will require independent planning authorities to make decisions without pecuniary interests in the outcome. While noting these points, I commend the bill to the council. The Hon. M.C. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (15:29): I rise briefly to add our support for the second reading of this bill. The concept of continuing professional development is not new in the professions. Most of us who engage, for example, with medical professionals are very grateful for the fact that they are obliged to keep their skills up to date. They are obliged every year to undertake further training to learn about the latest techniques, to learn about new science, to learn about the effect or the impacts of certain drugs. It is just a no-brainer when it comes to medical and allied professions. When it comes to the practice of architecture, I think there are also pressing reasons why continuing professional development makes sense. I note first that the agreement, apparently nationwide, for this to occur was 13 years ago, so it has taken South Australia some time to get with the program, as it were, to legislate for continuing professional development. One of the reasons I think it is important in the practice of architecture is in relation to the recent changes in the understanding of sustainability in the built form. I, for one, think that it is entirely appropriate that architects should be exposed to the latest thinking in relation to water-sensitive urban design or energy efficiency and things like that. There may well be architects whose qualifications are so old that issues of environmental sustainability never formed part of their formal studies. So I think it is important that all architects, old and new, be brought up to speed. The Hon. David Ridgway, during question time, talked about Kangaroo Island and he reminded me that a nephew of mine has just recently graduated in architecture. He cut his teeth making gin at Kangaroo Island Spirits. He is a very talented young man. He makes excellent gin and I think he will make an even better architect. But I think in terms of the ongoing future development of the profession, this is a sensible move. It is long overdue. It is years after other states have implemented this move. The Greens are very pleased that it is now before us and we look forward to the speedy passage of this bill. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.