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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1542 ..

MS TUCKER: I have an amendment that will require the board to report to the minister annually and another amendment to ensure that conflicts of interest are disclosed via the minister to the relevant Assembly committee, echoing provisions in the action act. I am aware that the RAIA has some concerns with the role of nominees. Arguably the purpose of nominees is different in this bill. Here we are dealing with the optional added value of a registered architect as opposed to the obligatory expertise that comes with a licensing scheme.

As I understand it, the RAIA was suggesting that the nominee architect ought not to be left holding the baby if things go pear-shaped and that somehow the business ought to deal with the pears and the babies. There seems to be a problem with the architect needing to have alerted the business to unsatisfactory practice to relieve themselves of responsibility. I understand those concerns but cannot see how we can let them off the hook and still ensure that the work in question is performed by or judged satisfactory by a nominated professional.

We could do away with nominees altogether and simply leave the market and the courts to sort out whether the work is of a satisfactory standard and if it has or has not been performed by a registered architect. The problem then would be that the quality that architects believe they offer and want to assure the public they provide is uncertain. I appreciate that architects express concern about the level of responsibility they consider this bill will impose on them, but have come to the view that there are no halfway measures available. The government amendment, however, does remove the uncertainty that seems to be attached to terms such as “supervise”, “provide” or “responsible” and leave the interpretation of ensuring “compliance with the act” up to the architects board.

Another matter of concern is the definition of crimes that warrant disciplinary action. When the deregistration of architects is considered, on one hand the basic hurdle seems to be one of bankruptcy, and an offence with a penalty of imprisonment for a year or more on the other hand. The establishment of disciplinary grounds applies to offences resulting in imprisonment for a year or more, but they are specified as involving fraud, dishonesty or violence.

While no-one wants to endorse violence, I do not see how that necessarily reflects on one’s capacity as an architect. Such a specification might have ruled out Francis Greenway! However, there being grounds for disciplinary action does not alleviate the board from responsibility to consider the relevant circumstances; so offences such as violence would apply only if they were relevant to the architect’s practice. Similarly, bankruptcy would only be grounds for deregistration when the bankruptcy is relevant to their practice. This bill is well structured and I will support it. I will address some other points at the detail stage.

MS DUNDAS (5.04): The ACT Democrats will be supporting the Architects Bill. This bill, like all the bills debated in the past sitting weeks, has been a long time coming. It is unfortunate that this work was not done sooner. There is certainly the impression that the urgency of the architects legislation being dealt with today is tied to the fact that the ACT has lost national competition policy payments. That is regrettable but should not be the sole impetus for government to legislate. Obviously the existing Architects Act was

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