Building Act 2000

2009 (No.) 2009 Parliament of Tasmania LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL SELECT COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT ACCREDITATION OF BUILDING PRACTITIONERS AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE BUILDING ACT 2000 Members of the Committee Mr Ivan Dean Ms Ruth Forrest Mr Paul Harriss (Chair) Ms Lin Thorp Mr Jim Wilkinson Table of Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................. 3 Executive Summary ................................................................... 4 Conclusions ................................................................................ 8 Recommendations ..................................................................... 9 Introduction .............................................................................. 10 Chapter 1 — Agreement between the Tasmanian Compliance Corporation and the Hon Bryan Green ................................... 12 Chapter 2 — The Optimum Framework for the Accreditation of Building Practitioners and Administration of the Building Act 2000 ........................................................................................... 15 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................ 56 ATTACHMENT 1 — LIST OF WITNESSES .............................. 63 ATTACHMENT 2 — WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TAKEN INTO EVIDENCE ................................................................................. 65 ATTACHMENT 3 — DOCUMENTS TAKEN INTO EVIDENCE . 67 ATTACHMENT 4 – MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS .................. 72 2 ABBREVIATIONS AACA Architects Accreditation Council of Australia ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution AIBS Australian Institute of Building Surveyors AQF Australian Qualifications Framework BPACT Building Professions Accreditation Corporation Tasmania BSA Building Services Authority (Queensland) CPD Continuous/Continuing Professional Development CPI Consumer Price Index DBC Director of Building Control HIA Housing Industry Association MBA Master Builders Association RAIA (AIA) Royal Australian Institute of Architects (Australian Institute of Architects from 1 July 2008) TAFE Technical and Further Education TBCITB Tasmanian Building and Construction Industry Training Board TCC Tasmanian Compliance Corporation TIBA Tasmanian Independent Builders’ Association Incorporated WST Workplace Standards Tasmania 3 Executive Summary The Legislative Council Select Committee on the Accreditation of Building Practitioners and Administration of the Building Act 2000, was established following the public exposure of matters contained in a Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the Tasmanian Compliance Corporation (TCC) and the then Minister responsible, the Hon Bryan Green (Term of Reference 1). The SLA was an agreement which, inter alia, required the TCC to: 1. Commence a program of auditing building practitioners. 2. Develop a code of conduct applicable to building practitioners. 3. Develop a plain English version of the accreditation scheme. Further, the SLA gave some financial surety to the government in the event that the TCC sought to discontinue its service. The two most contentious provisions of the SLA were: (a) that the government would be required to pay a substantial buy-out fee if it terminated the services of the TCC with anything less than 3 years notice; and (b) that the government guaranteed the TCC a monopoly and that it would not appoint any accreditation competitor without giving the TCC 3 years’ notice. The Committee’s second term of reference required the consideration of “the optimum framework for the accreditation of building practitioners and administration of the Building Act 2000 including the appropriateness of all consequential costs imposed on builders”. The Committee commenced its inquiry in 2006 and received written submissions and verbal evidence relating to its terms of reference. The evidence raised concern about the motivations and difficulties encountered by having a private company in charge of the accreditation process and criticised the TCC scheme. Members also visited Brisbane in October 2006 and met with officers from relevant government departments and organisations. On 29 November 2006 the Legislative Council suspended the operation of the Committee until the Council could be satisfied that the Committee’s inquiry would not prejudice related proceedings in the Supreme Court involving charges against Mr Bryan Green MP. 4 The prorogation of parliament on 22 February 2008 had the effect of dissolving the Committee and it was subsequently re-established on 4 March 2008. In further considering term of reference 1, it was decided that given the Court case and its findings, further investigation would be limited to the insertion of Clause 9 in the Service Level Agreement. That clause could best be described as a risk averse provision which purported to guarantee that the TCC operated as a monopoly as outlined above. Verbal evidence was received from Mr Green MP in this regard. The Committee has not made any conclusions in relation to this issue. It should be noted, however, that the evidence provided by Mr Green differed significantly to that presented to the Supreme Court by his former advisor, Mr Guy Nicholson. The Committee continued its inquiry into the second term of reference and received additional evidence from the major stakeholders. The information received at this time pointed to concerns in relation to fees; accreditation processes; dispute resolution procedures; and continuing professional development. The TCC’s commission was withdrawn in September 2006 and Workplace Standards Tasmania (WST) took over the accreditation process. The scheme implemented by WST in July 2008 remains problematic. There appear to be inconsistencies in the accreditation process. Examples were provided by Engineers Australia suggesting that some applicants in the engineer category were accredited without any reference to that organisation as long as the applicant had three years experience in an engineering discipline considered appropriate by WST. Concerns were also raised about the expertise within WST to accredit practitioners. Expert review panels were to be established for the various categories of building practitioners involved in the building industry, including professions and specialised fields. No such panels had been established under the current scheme. The professional institutes representing Architects, Engineers and Building Surveyors expressed particular concern regarding the requirements of accreditation. Architects are registered under stand-alone legislation and in addition the Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA) maintains professional standards and disciplinary procedures. Engineers and Building Surveyors, likewise, have professional institutes but do not have profession specific legislation. The accreditation standards adopted by the TCC for architects were less than those required to satisfy registration under the Architects Act or for membership of the RAIA. This concern has continued with the change of regulator. The RAIA suggested that duplication should be avoided and that registration under the Architects Act should be an acceptable qualification for 5 accreditation under the Building Act. The RAIA contend that Tasmania’s Building Act 2000 has been partly modelled on Victorian legislation, but that the Tasmanian legislation lacks the provisions to ensure that the regulation of architects in that jurisdiction stay within their Architects Act. Although there is no Engineers Act in Tasmania, it is nonetheless considered that the Engineers Australia professional register could be altered to include a building certifiers’ classification similar to New South Wales and thereby facilitated reciprocal recognition for accreditation as a building practitioner under the Building Act 2000. Similarly, the AIBS was considered the most appropriate body to assess the professional competence of building surveyors. It is considered that applicants, who are nationally accredited with AIBS at the relevant level, should be automatically accredited under the Building Act at minimal cost. It is evident that some weight is now given to professional registration when accrediting under the Building Act 2000, however, architects remain subject to regulation under two Acts. The level of experience and qualifications required for accreditation as a building practitioner concerned industry representatives. Some considered it was too easy to gain accreditation without necessarily having fulfilled appropriate educational prerequisites. The requirements of AQF for accreditation was also questioned. The Committee received evidence suggesting there was inadequate continuing professional development (CPD) provided by either the TCC or WST. One key concern was that CPD had been used as an advertising forum for building suppliers, or alternatively, as a money-making attempt for individuals. Others suggested that improvements were needed to make the required CPD more relevant. Industry questioned the lack of rigorous auditing of practitioners to ensure compliance. Evidence presented to the Committee in November 2008 suggested that the audit system was being developed and new staff sought for this purpose. Dispute resolution was a further area of concern. The Department of Justice’s Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading division is developing a scheme whereby remedy of defective work could be enforced by legislation. The most recent update of the Consumer Affairs website indicates that the Tasmanian Government has now agreed to the drafting

Load more