Discussion paper: National Registration Framework for Building Practitioners

My reply is only referring to the Registrations for Architects / Building Designers / Draftspersons.

I acknowledge that it is important to have a uniform approach to Registration, however, I have great concerns for the proposed Qualification with Restrictions to the Level of work allowed under these new rules.

My Qualifications are:
1) Associate Diploma in Architectural Drafting (1996)
2) Diploma in Building Inspection (1997)

I have been working in this industry for over 22yrs and have been running my own practice for the last 10yrs. My current and past projects ranges from Class 1 to Class 9 Bldgs.

The proposed Changes to this will mean that I am only qualified at Lvl 3 (Lowest Lvl) as I only have a Assoc. Diploma. I find this extraordinary and extremely unfair as that will mean I will close up shop as my involvement in this industry is not limited to Class 1 buildings!

I consider my knowledge and experience in this industry to be of quite a high standard and have proven this on my previous work. So the Registration process should not be limited to such Restrictive Criteria with a "One Size Fits All" Approach as it will be detrimental to the entire Industry.

I've worked with many Architects and Draftspersons/Designers and can quantify that a qualification does not make them automatically qualify for such Lvl of Registrations.

Running my own practice, working more than 12hrs a day and trying to balance life with young family is already difficult as it is, so I would not be in any position to go back to Tertiary industry to do the full Architectural Course just so I can qualify for this new Registration in my field to keep my business operating. Its not reasonable to "Pigeon Hole" practitioners with our level of experience to these reforms.

I request that we are given a chance to submit our documentation for the different classes of buildings to justify our Registration to a Higher Level. For myself, I believe I should be in the Top Tier rather than shelved to the bottom shelf. It just doesn't make sense at all. The assessment of existing practitioner should be made to individual basis for existing practitioners to assess our competency and experience.

I also have concerns with restrictions to buildings up to 3 Storeys or Restricted floor areas. My current projects are up to 5 Storey Apartments and Warehouses greater than the specified.

We need to retain the current experienced documentator's without adding to the Unemployment queue!

The people assessing these Registration for different levels should not be given to Administration Staff who have no knowledge of the standards needed for Documentation as it is currently is with the VBA registration / Renewal process.

Currently in my field as a Draftsperson / Building Designer, there is also not standard Fee Structure for what we should charge. At the moment, its like a "Free for all" where each dog undercuts the other. Clients who don't know any better are driven by price which sets the scene for the old adage of "you get what you paid for" so the quality of the documentation decreases based on this!

So a national approach on the minimum rate of charge for different Class of buildings / documentation for Building Designers / Draftspersons is needed to keep the Standard of documentation at a HIGH rate.

We talk about improving levels of Documentation but we need to address the Fee structures (similar to the Law Institute) which clearly defines the rate of charge. This is in my view one of the main issues that determines the level of competency out the field. Just like Builders are also building nasty buildings due to Ridiculous undercutting.

So the registration process is only one piece of the puzzle. Without addressing a standard Minimum rate of charge, its Open to abuse!

However, we cannot pigeon hole existing practitioners based on what they have in way of existing Qualifications / Certificates they have.

A Certificate is only piece of paper which is worthless unless they have proven experience and shown competency with the work they have done.

I also disagree with the CPD points system which is more like a "Frequent Flyers" Point system. If I wanted to get points, I can go to Coles to get my rewards Points.
Not everyone has the time to partake in these glorified Rewards Schemes or have the financial capacity to maintain all these commitments.

If the qualification levels are restricted based on what "piece of paper" (Certificate) you currently have from a Tertiary point of view, then it will be the end of my practice as I know it.

Criteria for Qualifications for Lvl 1-3 should not be a simplistic approach based on a glorified qualification. Someone like myself with 22yrs experience will be asked to start again from the bottom. That's "BS" to put it politely.

Existing Practitioners should be assessed individually based on their competence, knowledge and experience in the industry. Not the piece of paper they hold.

Compare this to a Drivers Licence. Not everyone can drive competently!

Compliance with the NCC depends on the type of work the practitioner is exposed to.
"You are only as good as the teacher who taught you" or the type of work that you have been exposed to.

Registrations based on a piece of paper does not prove competency!
The assessment of each practitioner should be undertaken to assess their level of competency.

Lvl 1 - Requires Architectural Degree

Lvl 2 - Assoc Degree of Diploma
but cannot document Type A Buildings (Class 2,3 & 9)
Restricted to 3 storeys

Lvl 3 - Diploma in Arch Drafting
Cannot Document Type A or B Bldgs

You cannot pigeon hole a practitioner based on a piece of paper they hold.

They are quite restrictive and only relate to the Piece of Paper one has on display!
It doesn't prove competency or experience

They are quite restrictive and only relate to the Piece of Paper one has on display!
It doesn't prove competency or experience

There should be a National Minimum Rate of Charge for the types of Work (Class of Buildings) set out so that it does not lower the standard of documentation.
An example is the Law Institute which clearly sets out a min. wage so to speak.
We need more respect in this industry than what the perception is currently from the general public.

Currently, being a "Free for all" where any one can set up a practice so to undercut their competitor to get the work is what is driving the level of documentation down!

This is also reflected in the build quality as everyone is price driven for the smaller scaled buildings. That being said, the Large Muli-Level Buildings are open to abuse from those holding developers/Investors to ransom!