Discussion paper: National Registration Framework for Building Practitioners

The proposed NRF does enough in terms of the required qualifications for Building Surveyors, however DOES NOT do enough in terms of the major Industry issue at play in that private Building Certification / Surveying has now become completely untenable in the manner that it is currently legislated, as there is an immediate conflict of interest (as you are consultant & regulator) - you can't be both.
These functions need to be completely separated. Until such time this occurs there will be no relief in PI Insurance (base premium and excess) in sight, current premiums and excesses are untenable. In addition how can any practitioner practice without automatic 10yr automatic run-off?, which was allowed to be removed from policies by the Govt. circa 2001 to appease insurers?, this was the start of the end and the Govt should have heard the alarm bells at this point, but failed to address the matter. Legislators got the private Building Surveying certification system wrong from the outset and are about 20 yrs too late in trying to fix it. Building Certification needs Government involvement at some level, with most likely a mix between Local Government & private sector consultants similar to the Victorian Certification (Form 9) system that existing in the early 1990's (prior to full deregulation). Building Surveyors are the greatest "generalists" in the entire industry and don't specifically specialize in any one category of building and can be brought to task on any building defect matter (and that is whether there is a case to answer or not). The opportunity for something to go wrong in the building process is far too high a risk.
Our role should be predominantly one of an administrative role, however thanks to legal precedents over the years, the lack of appropriate project supervision, administration of the contract etc, Building Surveyors are now considered as the pseudo "clerk of works", which PI Insurers have realised ever increasingly over the years to where we are of today with "0" relief in site.
The whole certification system (with Govt buy in on the process) needs changing from the ground up, or if not it will simply all fall back on to Local Govt. as private certifiers start closing the doors.

The key practitioners in the Industry are / should be already registered?
The issue is systemic. The legislated private certification process needs to be reviewed and rewritten from the ground up (taking into consideration of the above for the benefit of the public and he Building Surveying Industry.

This doesn't address the main Industry issue at hand as referenced under the first point

As this doesn't address the main Industry issue at hand as referenced under the first point.
In addition the options for BCA performance Assessments on the use of materials and generally most BCA (Vol 1) Part C issues should be amended to DTS provisions only. Given the problems in this space, not to mention the buy from building insurers on these matters, community expectations. These should all be dealt with by DTS solutions not performance based solutions. Mandate full BCA & Aust / ISO Standard compliance certificates on all building materials and make it illegal to sell a building product that is not fit for the purpose it is intended.

No issue with the system for registration proposed - refer other issues as referenced previously.