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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1544 ..

joint state and territory response to the Productivity Commission’s original recommendations. This framework enables jurisdictions to legislate to support nationally agreed recommendations, allowing for essentially a developed set of professional standards as the basis to register architects in Australia. As well as satisfying competition policy objectives in the national harmonisation agreement, this bill updates an antiquated act.

The bill establishes the ACT Architects Board to ensure that registered architects provide services to the public in a professional and competent manner. It also provides mechanisms to discipline registered architects who are found to have acted unprofessionally or incompetently. The board will be responsible for registering architects, investigating complaints against architects and where necessary taking disciplinary action.

The new complaints and disciplinary processes parallel arrangements in the recently passed Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act. The board will also investigate matters referred to it by the minister for advice and report in relation to the practice of architecture, including codes of professional conduct. A key role for the board will be to provide general advice to consumers of architectural services. This is particularly important with respect to professional conduct and standards of competence expected of registered architects.

While the existing act provides only for the registration of individual architects, these days many firms provide a range of services including architectural services. The bill requires a firm that provides architectural services to nominate one or more registered architects to be responsible for supervising the provision of these services by the corporation or partnership. To be eligible to be a nominee the registered architect must be a director, partner or employee of the corporation or partnership. This issue of nominees has been the subject of vigorous debate in all jurisdictions that have embarked on legislative reform since 2000. The Royal Australian Institute of Architects’ preferred position is that, to be able to provide architectural services, companies and partnerships must have a majority of registered architects as directors or partners.

It is interesting to note that both the New South Wales Architects Board and the Architects Accreditation Council of Australia made submissions to the commission that the existing restrictions in relation to companies and partnerships were not appropriate. The important issue is to ensure that, where a company or partnership provides architectural services, those services are provided or supervised by a registered architect. This conclusion was reflected in the commission’s second recommendation and subsequently in the framework for harmonisation which the ACT government supports. Multi-disciplinary firms were not common when jurisdictions originally developed architects legislation. This reform deals more effectively with the need for arrangements for the provision of architectural services by both single and multi-disciplinary firms.

Members may be aware that Queensland and New South Wales have new architects acts. The Northern Territory amended its existing legislation to include provisions that have the same effect as the nominee provisions proposed in this bill. Western Australia has introduced legislation that also has provisions comparable to the nominee provisions. While I appreciate that the RAIA does not support the nominee provisions as its preferred approach it would be irresponsible of the ACT to draft legislation consistent

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