Discussion paper: National Registration Framework for Building Practitioners

17. We also agree with the registration levels proposed but will note in the qualifications subheading an inconsistency that has emerged that needs a review.

16. We agree with the definitions provided for registered project managers at level 1 and 2, along with the scope and limitations of work for each level.

18. We note a potential inconsistency with the minimum education requirement that conflicts with the requirements in the registration levels subheading. The latter requires a credential to at least AQF 7, while the qualifications sub-heading listed an “advanced diploma” as sufficient. An advanced diploma is AQF 6. This needs to be reviewed. For the record, RICS would support AQF 7 level qualifications as the minimum education requirement.

Recommendation
• Conduct a review to ensure consistency in the minimum education requirements for level 1 licensed project managers.


19. There is no discussion about professional qualifications obtained either in Australia or internationally being given any opportunity for equivalency for professionals that may not have degrees. We would also strongly encourage offering automatic recognition to any Chartered Surveyors (Project Management) being automatically recognised as a Registered project manager to level 1, and our Associate RICS Project Managers to level 2.
20. RICS accredits project management programs at institutions in Australia and across the world and as such we have a deep understanding of the profession beyond Australian shores and the equivalency of qualifications to Australian qualifications.

Recommendation
• Recognise relevant overseas qualifications to be recognised as equivalent to qualifications needed to become a level 1 or 2 registered project manager in Australia.
• Authorise RICS to be the professional body to determine and approve qualifications as relevant to level 1 and 2 requirements in Australia.


21. The concept of a project management qualification at tertiary institutions in Australia is relatively new (in fact RICS accredits undergraduate project management degrees at UTS and RMIT), and as such project managers working in the built environment tend to have construction management, quantity surveying or building surveying qualifications. We would recommend that any determination of “relevant qualification” would include those qualifications as relevant to becoming a registered project manager.

Recommendation
• Approve qualifications in construction management, quantity surveying and building surveying at AQF 7 (or higher) as relevant qualifications for the purposes of becoming a registered project manager.

22. We support what is being proposed for both level 1 and 2 but would again note that there is no indication that overseas educated and practiced professionals have the recourse to seek any equivalency or mutual recognition of experience.


Recommendation
• Recognise relevant overseas experience to be recognised as equivalent to experience needed to become a level 1 or 2 project manager in Australia.
• Authorise RICS to assess and determine international experience extensive experience and knowledge in the requirements of the project management professions given its capability and experience in assessing international qualifications.

1. We support the definitions of building surveyor for levels 1 and 2 in the draft along with the recommended scope and limitations of work according to the licences. This support is only on the basis however that by ‘Building Surveying’ the framework means ‘Building Control’, ‘Building Certification’ or similar.
2. We therefore note the conflation of the title ‘Building Surveying’ with the role and function of a professional qualified in building control or building certification.
3. Confusion is being caused across the construction sector, and across states, by liberal use of nomenclature to describe the statutory role of practitioners undertaking the specific and limited function of building certification. These practitioners are sometimes referred to as ‘building surveyors’ in Australia. This is out of step with global use of ‘building surveyor’ which is reserved for a professional with broader competencies.
4. A globally recognised ‘Building Surveyor’ is competent to undertake a wide range of roles typically with a different risk profile to a building certifier, including: building surveys and measured surveys; analysing design and building defects; preparing strategies for asset management and property maintenance; preparing insurance valuations and claims; preparing strategic property advice and landlord and tenant advice; project management and development monitoring; accessibility and energy audits; specialist surveys (asbestos, damp etc.); conservation advice and sustainability advice.

Recommendation
• Review the nomenclature used to describe the role of a building certifier in Australia and have regard for international differentiation between building certification and building surveying.

5. We wish to question the appropriateness of the minimum education requirement for licenced building surveyors to be AQF 8. This requirement exceeds the existing requirement of AQF 7. We note that selected programs currently accredited by the AIBS—of which this framework has recognised its list of accredited academic courses—would no longer be sufficient for the purposes of being able to obtain a licence. This far exceeds the requirements internationally and would significantly impact the ability for any overseas trained professional to work in Australia. It would unfairly force experienced professionals to enrol onto advanced programs in Australia to become qualified. We haven’t been able to determine any reason why the education requirement has been increased, nor has any justification been advanced by this document, so would question its necessity.

Recommendation
• Reduce the minimum qualification requirement from AQF 8 to AQF to 7.