Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 711 ..

In June 2002 the Australian Procurement and Construction Council, on which the Deputy Chief Minister represents the territory, agreed in principle to pursue the harmonisation of architects acts in cooperation with the boards of architects of each jurisdiction. Since that time, work has continued in many jurisdictions to develop legislation that addresses such issues as registration criteria, mandatory qualifications and experience, insurance, and title protection to restrict the use of the term “architect”. No jurisdiction supported the establishment of a national registration scheme, which is the preference of the architects bodies, but the establishment of a national architects database was supported.

A framework for national harmonisation, consistent with the Productivity Commission’s second recommendation, has been adopted and endorsed by the Australian Procurement and Construction Council. The National Competition Council is using this framework as the basis for the assessment of the jurisdictions’ compliance with reform requirements. The framework for legislative reform is that:

• regulatory bodies be constituted, with broad, industry-wide and consumer representation;

• the regulation of architects not include restriction of practice;

• restriction of the use of the titles “architect” and “registered architect” remain;

• where an organisation offers the services of an architect, an architect must supervise and be responsible for those services;

• complaints and disciplinary procedures be made more transparent and provide avenues for appeal; and

• architectural boards be encouraged to identify and implement means of broadening certification channels.

The current territory act does not meet the framework requirements against which the National Competition Council will assess reforms. In addition to the national competition policy requirements, many parties, including those within the architectural profession and within the administration, are of the view that our present ACT legislation is limited in its effectiveness.

The principal function of the present act has been to distinguish between graduates in architecture and people with sufficient professional experience to apply for a practising certificate. The ACT is the only jurisdiction that issues such practising certificates. The act has neither a complaints process nor a clearly defined and transparent discipline process. The act does not expressly provide for the appointment of community representatives on the Architects Board. The Architects Bill 2004 will address these inadequacies and is consistent with the principles of harmonisation.

The purpose of the bill is to establish the ACT Architects Board, to ensure that registered architects provide services to the public in a professional and competent manner and to provide mechanisms to discipline registered architects who are found to have acted unprofessionally or incompetently. The bill is also to ensure that the public has access to information about the qualifications and competence of individuals as registered architects. As part of the national commitment to harmonisation and information sharing, the bill’s objectives also specify the establishment of a register of architects.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .