HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-02-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

BUILDING SURVEYORS

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:22): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about accreditation of building surveyors.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The peak body representing the building surveying professionals is the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors. That body is responsible for ensuring that building work and construction is carried out in accordance with the building rules. In fact, the Development Act 1993 requires that all persons who undertake the building rules assessments be accredited by an approved building industry accreditation authority. Since 2002, the South Australian government has recognised the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors as the only approved building industry accreditation authority in South Australia.

The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors is the accreditation authority for building surveyors for four states and territories (South Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory and the ACT) and also for the Department of Defence. The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, in conjunction with the COAG agreement, provides the federal government's national accreditation framework for building surveyors, as prepared by the Australian Building Codes Board.

The Development Act in section 101 provides that the minister, in relation to any matter arising under that act that is declared by regulation, may grant that authority to a person under that act. Is the minister aware that one of his staff has made a representation to the Building Advisory Committee with a view to setting up an alternative body to accredit building surveyors in South Australia?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:24): I received a letter yesterday (and I note that a copy was sent to the Leader of the Opposition) from the Institute of Building Surveyors in relation to the accreditation of building surveyors. However, it has a much longer history than that.

Section 101 of the Development Act makes provision for the recognition of people to provide planning advice pursuant to regulation 86 of the Development Act regulations. Also, section 101 of this legislation provides the opportunity for ministerial recognition under regulation 87 to enable persons to provide building advice. That provision has been in the building act since the early 1990s. It has been used a number of times. In fact, if one looks at the website of Planning SA, under section 101 they will see a list of about 30-plus names of people who have been granted accreditation as planners down the years.

Of course, there is an alternative way in which people get recognition for planning advice under section 101, and that is through membership and the associated qualification of the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA).

In relation to building advice, traditionally, although the provisions existed under that section of the act for a long time, hitherto recognition has been given through the institute as a delegated authority. I received an application from a person late last year for recognition I think under planning. Subsequently there has been one for recognition under the building section. There have been a number down the years—they certainly predate me. There are over 30 of them in planning. Previous governments and the honourable member's colleagues have used section 101 for a number of years. It has been used regularly in planning as sometimes you need people in remote areas, or there are other reasons for getting recognition. If the honourable member goes back it is probably the sort of clause the Liberal Party would approve of because it claims it does not believe in a closed shop.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Wait a moment—there is a long story here. I find it extraordinary. The Liberal Party is saying that we should have a closed shop arrangement in relation to the Institute of Building Surveyors being able to determine this. Issues have been raised in New South Wales and I will go on to that in a moment, but when I had the application for planning accreditation it raised the issue of what is the basis on which this should be done. I wrote a minute to the Chief Executive of Primary Industries and Resources back on 14 November last year, as follows:

From time to time I received requests from persons seeking recognition under section 101(2) of the Development Act to enable them to provide planning advice pursuant to regulation 86 of the Development Act regulations. I note that the legislation also provides opportunity for ministerial recognition under regulation 87 to enable persons to provide building advice. In considering such application I am of the view that there needs to be a clear and robust system in place. Accordingly, I have resolved that where applications are received seeking recognition under regulation 86 that these be referred to the Development Policy Advisory Committee (DPAC) for the provision of advice and a report to me on the suitability of the applicant.

In the case of applications received seeking recognition under regulation 87 [to which the honourable member referred], these are to be referred to the building advisory committee for the provision of advice and report to me on the suitability of the applicant. I note that further work is required to map out a formal work flow for how applications are to be assessed and believe that these should be worked out in consultation with each committee before being presented back to me for formal endorsement. There are obvious advantages in ensuring consistency of process between each committee. Could you please liaise with Mr George Vanco from my office to ensure that an appropriate report is presented to the next meetings of both BAC and DPAC.

That was the action I took when the issue was raised. Someone had applied for section 101 recognition under the Development Act. There had been no precedence for building accreditation, and it is my understanding that that person, who was formerly qualified under the Institute of Building Surveyors, has subsequently renewed their membership and that issue no longer arises, but we need to get this process in place.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The leader should be aware of the situation in other states. Some states use the Institute of Building Surveyors to accredit building surveyors, but the honourable member should be aware of a joint committee on the quality of buildings back four or five years ago. The inquiry commenced in March 2002 in New South Wales. The government has made two decisions relating to the New South Wales certification system and I will read from the report of the select committee, as follows:

On 7 May 2002 the minister for planning withdrew authorisation of the Building Surveyors and Allied Professionals (BSAP) to operate an accreditation scheme for New South Wales certifiers. This decision followed concerns about the BSAP administration and management of complaints and disciplinary duties delegated to it by the minister under the EP&A Act. It was assessed that BSAP was failing to respond to complaints against its accredited certifiers in New South Wales.

Evidence of long delays and non responses to complaints by BSAP, have been revealed through subsequent complaints from Councils and consumers to PlanningNSW. Failures to investigate and discipline certifiers also appears to have occurred, as well as failure of BSAP to report activities to the Minister. The Director-General of PlanningNSW has responsibility for the accreditation scheme for an interim period and, since taking over the function, has provided the following data:

The statistics follow. The report continues:

PlanningNSW's action plan in response to this issue includes:

a moratorium on new accreditations and exploration of accreditations for 2 months

reviewing the complaints held by BSAP and possible disciplinary actions

setting up re-accreditation criteria

identifying certifiers operating without valid accreditation and examining implications given this is a serious offence under the act

general review of the accreditation scheme.

Since I have been the planning minister in this state, some issues have emerged about certification. History has shown that very little action has been taken in cases where certifiers have certified work that has subsequently been found to be inappropriate. It is important that certifiers be properly qualified and that these regimes of certification be properly audited. If one looks at the act, there is no monopoly and nor was there intended to be in relation to the accreditation of building surveyors. If one looks at the regulations one can see that they have always allowed for other bodies to be involved.

Regarding planning accreditation, as I said, over 30 people have been accredited under section 101, and there are good reasons for it. The Planning Institute of Australia does not have a monopoly in relation to that assessment. So, there is history in New South Wales in early 2002 which suggests that there are problems with outsourcing accreditation of building surveyors. It is a very important area. People rely on surveyors to accredit the safety of buildings.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The honourable member says that our consumers do not matter. So, you are saying that we should not be looking—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: What complaints have you had?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: So, the opposition is saying, 'We don't care about consumers. We don't care whether our surveying—'

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: You see: he obviously does not care about it. We had amendments to the act last year, but I want to ensure that, because of the importance of building surveyors—and, when they sign on the line, consumers expect that their buildings are sound—any accreditation, however it is done, is appropriate for protecting consumers. That is why back in November last year I wrote to the chief executive to set up a process to ensure that we have the proper accreditation planning for building surveyors. That work is ongoing. Given the findings in New South Wales a similar thing has happened there, and the accreditation has been removed. Incidentally, the New South Wales BSAP that I referred to was, in fact, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors.

The question really is: should we just rely totally on accreditation from the AIBS, do we need to at least audit the process, or should other avenues be allowed for assessing building surveyors? That is what I have asked the head of my department to look at. At present, as I said, under section 101 there are 30 or 40 planners who have been accredited, and these go back for many years, including, I would imagine, during the former government. These people include some people who work in Planning SA. These people work on the development plan amendments and obviously they need to be accredited planners.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Planners or surveyors?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I said, there are two categories: both planners and building surveyors. In relation to planners, the PIA does not have a monopoly, and section 101 has been used a number of times in relation to that. I have no intention of using that clause until I get the report back from the chief of the Department of Primary Industries and Resources so we can have a proper review of the provisions that relate to the accreditation of building surveyors. It is important. Changes have been made in other states. We need to assure the public that whatever process is used is correct. I do not suggest that there have been any problems in relation to the accreditation to date but, given that there—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: How am I wasting resources? This government likes to act in advance. We pre-empt problems. Members opposite wait until things happen; they are the people who do not react. It was obvious, when I received this letter yesterday, that the Leader of the Opposition, given that he received a copy, would try to raise this letter. What I can do is to assure the chamber and the public that the government has this matter well in hand and that we will ensue that, however building surveyors are accredited in the future, we will have a scheme that is properly audited. Given the experience in states such as New South Wales, we will not allow it to be outsourced to a body that may or may not be properly audited to do it.

Incidentally, since the honourable member will, no doubt, be sending this response to the Institute of Building Surveyors, my office has contacted the institute and I will be talking to it as soon as this session of parliament is over, and as soon as I have some time in my diary in March. I will be happy to discuss and explain things to the institute. I will say that we would like it to be involved in any process that will enable us to move forward. I am not suggesting for one moment that the AIBS should not continue in that role but, given the experience in other states, to satisfy the public that the accreditation of building surveyors is properly assessed, we will be doing that.

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