Submission cover sheet
- Name of organisation or individual making this submission
- Authorised delegate/contact person
Questions on possible options
- Is the commencement date of 1 July 2020 for the proposed Regulation and the Act allowing for a 6-month transitional period appropriate? Why or why not?
- Do you support the Secretary being able to require an applicant to complete additional training and having discretion to recognise other training? Why or why not?
Yes, I have bee denied accreditation for over 6 years due to the fact that BPB adopted the AIBS approach which only includes modern courses as being acceptable. There was no degree in Building Surveying when I commenced in 1995. My Degree is far more comprehensive covering many more aspects than building surveying alone and it included two years part time work in the building industry. Which had to be completed before Graduation. Building Surveying is an evolved profession and does no building surveying course does adequately terrain building surveyors to construct a project or even manage one properly. How can Building Surveyors actually be responsible if they really dont have the necessary skills to perform or manage the project adequately. My Degree is UTS Building in Construction Management and it should be a more than accepted qualification.
- Do you support the grounds for finding that a person is not a suitable person to carry out certification work? Why or why not?
- Do you support the process and fee for a certifier to apply for a variation of registration? Why or why not?
Far too expensive and so is private insurance. The fees charged should provide necessary coverage to effected members of the community. And the offending certifier penalized accordingly.
- Are the requirements for professional indemnity insurance contracts and exclusions in the proposed Regulation appropriate? Why or why not?
No as mentioned above. PI insurance is a gold mine for insurers and the public should not have to fund there own cases against the might og multi national insurance companies.
- Do you support the proposed prescribed conflicts of interest in clause 24 and exemptions in clause 25? Why or why not?
- Do you support the list of particulars in clause 28, the requirement for a declaration and information sheet including the contents? Why or why not?
- Do you support the matters that an accreditation scheme must provide for in clauses 38 to 45? Why or why not? What other matters should be considered?
No should not require a scheme or professional bodies. The proposed act and its regulation will be sufficient.
- Are the record keeping requirements, penalties and timeframes appropriate for registered certifiers, local councils and accreditation authorities? Why or why not?
- Do you support the exemption for registered certifiers employed by councils applying in relation to the payment of a penalty as a form of disciplinary action? Why or why not?
No. Councils and the Private sector are in effect competitors and should be treated equally.
- Do you support the particulars in clause 64 that must be included in the register of registrations and approvals? Why or why not? What other particulars should be considered?
- Do you support the proposed classes of registration certifiers, including the way they have been streamlined and what each class is authorised to do? Why or why not?
- Do you support the proposed duties in the code of conduct? Why or why not? What other duties should be considered?
- Do you support the qualifications, experience, skills, knowledge and continuing professional development requirements in the proposed Regulation? Why or why not?
Now. Training can be carried out by an inidivdual for very little cost. The internet is so available and covers everything one need to know. The CPD is a cashcow for trainers and so called experts!
- Do you support the proposed fees and penalty notice offences? Why or why not?
No fees are far too excessive. No problem with offences.
- Do you have any further comments regarding the proposed regulations?
Personally I have been banished by the accreditation process after a solid 18 year career including approvals and inspections at the Sydney Olympic Games. I am totally dissatisfied by the current effectiveness of the Building Professionals Boards and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act itself. Building Surveying never was about collecting certifcates it was about inspecting and researching and being sure before making a decision and progressing with construction. Todays system and crop of Building Surveyors I am afraid are the problem behind the failures of many recent projects. Too much focus on making a dollar and be friendly with clients, I am afraid it is a tough decision to hold up a project but in many cases that is the reason successful outcomes used to result. The political interference by directors and management within councils is real and a real a concern for considering how to progress the industry moving forward again.