HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 March 2009. Page 1836.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (15:52): I am pleased to inform the house that I am the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition, and that gives me the opportunity to speak at length on this very detailed matter. However, I could change my practice and refer anybody who wants to know what the opposition's position on this is to the upper house Hansard of 17 February 2009, page 1,272, where my colleague the Hon. David Ridgway gave the opposition's perspective of this piece of legislation, and having done that I could sit down and save the house some time. I will not quite do that, but I will not take more than a few minutes.

The Architectural Practice Bill repeals the existing principal legislation, the Architects Act 1939, I think. It has arisen out of the competition policy adopted at COAG quite a few years ago. To be quite honest, I thought that that work had been completed. I was unaware that there were still some remnants of that agreement between the state and the commonwealth, and there are still some legislative changes happening.

The opposition agrees with the position put by the government that this modernises the Architects Act and brings it up to the standard that we expect of this type of legislation, which regulates various professional bodies. It is largely in line with other legislation which regulates a number of professions. I will not go into a detailed description of the act because I would merely be repeating what the minister has already put on the record and, as I said, what my colleague has put on the record in the other place.

I take this opportunity to note the irony that, whilst the government is demonstrating the importance of the architectural industry and those who practise in that industry—I understand there are some 800 registered practising architects in South Australia—I think it is lamentable that the government, in its undue haste to spend the money, the largesse, which the Rudd government is throwing around like a drunken sailor on shore leave, particularly with regard to school halls and gymnasiums, has taken the decision that it will use a one-size-fits-all regime and will not employ architects to do individual designs to fit with the—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister says that is not the case. I hope the minister will respond—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I am just pointing out the irony, minister.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: You haven't got it right. There's a panel of architects.

Mr WILLIAMS: A panel of architects. There is going to be a panel of architects.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: No. I would have thought that, for the sake of good design, we would actually judge each particular site on its merits, so that we actually have some architectural merit for the vast sums of money being spent. I just want to put on the record that I note the irony there and repeat that the opposition supports the legislation. The opposition did liaise and consult with the industry prior to this matter going through the other place. So, any work that would have needed to be done during the third reading or committee stage has already been completed. I understand that most of that happened during consultation, before the bill was even brought in to the other place. So, the opposition will not be seeking to go into committee on the matter either. I will close my remarks there and wish the bill a speedy passage through the house.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (15:56): I rise for several reasons. One is to say at least that the opposition has done more than just leave it to the shadow minister. Secondly, I think it is important—and I am trying to be an example, as whip, to all my colleagues and say that we should research all bills, irrespective of whether or not we support them or whether they are big or little ones. I will just say to my colleagues who are not speaking this afternoon: I am doing it for you. We should all at least do the work on them.

As the member for MacKillop (our shadow minister) said, we support this bill. This bill has been introduced in order to bring the architectural profession in line with contemporary consumer protection legislation by repealing the Architects Act 1939—that is a long time ago. The current act is now 70 years old and requires substantial amendments so that it is more appropriate to the current needs of the profession. We need to align it with the legislation in other states and current competition policy. That is a dreaded word that is apparently still being used—competition policy. A lot has been said about that, particularly in relation to grain marketing.

Following the 1995 COAG endorsement of the National Competition Policy agreements, the State Review Panel was appointed in order to implement the obligations required by these agreements. The competition principles, created in partnership with the agreement, included a review of legislation which relates to the competition.

The review panel subsequently recommended an overhaul of the Architects Act 1939. It was the opinion of the review panel that sufficient consumer protection was provided by the Trade Practices Act and the Fair Trading Act, and it was decided that further restrictions relating to the purpose, ownership and control of architect companies encompassed within the Architects Act 1939 were no longer appropriate or necessary.

In summary, the bill removes any competitive provisions by cancelling the by-laws relating to the endorsement of the current code of conduct by the Architects Board, removing restrictions on advertising and 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 of the membership of the governing body must be registered architects.

As a further quality control measure, the State Review Panel recommended that the Architects Board include a consumer representative so that the board is re-focused on protecting the public interest rather than those of the profession. The remainder of the board will then comprise three registered architects, one lawyer, a person with accounting qualifications and experience and a person with regional, planning, building, surveying or construction qualifications or experience. The minister would appoint the presiding member—a good job for retiring MPs—with the Governor to determine remuneration, allowances and expenses of the board.

Other components of the bill include: a register of architects and architectural businesses is to be kept by the registrar; restrictions on the provision of architectural services (this includes the provision for falsely representing oneself as a registered architect); provisions for disciplinary proceedings of the board; and changes to the appeals process on decisions made by the board.

I note the minister's comment in relation to the member for MacKillop's point about the irony but, again, we are happy that we have the answer to that.

The Hon. David Ridgway, as shadow minister for planning, has contacted Mr Andrew Davies, the Chairperson of the Architects Board of South Australia. Mr Davies indicated that the board had engaged in numerous discussions with the minister and they are happy with the bill. There has been a full consultation, there is no problem and, therefore, the opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (16:00): I thank members for their contributions. I always enjoy the member for Schubert's contribution, but I do not think there will ever be a loose-leaf service called 'Venning on Architectural Practice'. In answer to the comments by the shadow spokesperson, when he talks about the irony of architects being involved, it would be helpful if he actually informed himself. Of course, there are architects involved. He says that one size fits all, which is not the case; again, it would be helpful if he informed himself. Standardised design does not mean you build the same building everywhere; it just does not mean that. Had he bothered to attend any of the briefings that were attended by hundreds of industry and skills people, he would have found that out.

I will place on the record that the opposition has opposed, and continues to oppose, our 590 primary schools receiving a building of the value of between $500,000 and $3 million. That means that 590 of those buildings in South Australia have been opposed by the opposition, just as they were opposed by the federal opposition. They may be shy about letting the schools and parents know about that, but we will not. We will make sure that all of those people know when their buildings are being built that, if it were for the opposition, they would not be getting them at all. I am happy to put that on the record any time I can.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Good; like I am just sending these letters to people about Senator Ferguson's speech.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes. I have to say that if the opposition continues to perform the way it is performing, we will have to build more benches on this side. I thank everyone and commend the bill to the house.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT