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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1543 ..

out of date and needed reform and this bill provides a reasonable solution to the problems presented in the old act.

I would like to talk briefly about the Productivity Commission’s report on the review of legislation regulating the architectural profession. The heart of the report goes to the issue of competition between architects and building designers and the fact that legislation should not unduly restrict that competition. The commission’s report went significantly further than this legislation, recommending that all state legislation be repealed and that the industry should be self-regulated by a national framework. However, it is my understanding that the states did not agree to this framework but agreed to update and modernise their architects boards and remove unnecessary restrictions on the practices of building designers.

I am not aware of any particular restrictions that exist on building designers in the territory. I am certainly not aware of any laws that restrict the practice in the ACT like those in other jurisdictions that mandate that architects must design certain buildings. The commission noted that other professional bodies such as accounting or engineering bodies are able to maintain their professional standing without statutory regulation.

This bill represents a compromise between the findings of the Productivity Commission, state and territory governments and architects. It is a reasonable compromise and I think we should note that sometimes leaving room for discussion and compromise in government can be a positive thing. I am aware that additional concerns about the bill have been raised by the industry, including the Royal Australian Institute of Architects. I think some of those concerns stem from confusion about the meaning of particular parts of the legislation and others are problems where there is disagreement about the form of regulation. But in general there seems to be a consensus with stakeholders that they will be able to live with the general outcomes presented today. I particularly welcome the inclusion of a community representative on the architects board to give consumers more of a voice in the regulation of the profession.

I note that a number of my colleagues have amendments to this bill. I agree with the sentiments raised by Ms Tucker’s amendments that the board does not currently have to report on its activities. I will be listening with interest to Mrs Dunne’s comments on her amendments. At this stage I am not inclined to support them as they appear to significantly alter the ability of the board to discipline its members. I will await with interest more discussion on those amendments in the detail stage. That being said, I am happy to support the Architects Bill 2004.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (5.08), in reply: This bill finalises the national reform process that began as a response to national debate on the issues of architects legislation. The Commonwealth, on behalf of all states and territories except Victoria, requested that the Productivity Commission review architects legislation across Australia. The review was for the dual purpose of assisting jurisdictions to meet their obligations under the national competition policy agreements and to achieve greater consistency in any future regulation of the architectural profession in Australia. The review was completed in the year 2000.

The national framework for the harmonisation of architects legislation was developed through the Australian Procurement and Construction Ministerial Council following the

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