Sue and Neil are planners - and they don't like building surveyors at all

Also in this issue:

• But we met with them nevertheless
• Sue and Neil aren't the only ones to keep the guild hostility alive
• Urgent survey: Any unqualified people out there?
• BPB CEO Neil Cocks replies
• And in March, time for something different

 

But we met with them nevertheless

We've complained for years that the Department of Planning (and DUAP before it) and the BPB do whatever they want to do, try and suck you into phoney consultation when they don't really care what your opinion is and then publish something thanking you for your contribution. It's disingenuous at best.

But the world sometimes works in strange ways and we were delighted to receive an invitation from BPB CEO Neil Cocks to meet with him and BPB President Sue Holliday. Something that President Kerry Hunt and I did on 10 February, happily travelling to the Department of Planning in response to their gracious invitation.

It was a pleasant but frank meeting.

They tried to encourage us to help design an acceptable accreditation system for local government employees and we tried to encourage them to accredit councils (if they had to meddle in local government at all) and let councils continue to do what they've done historically.

They tried to convince us that there wouldn't be too much scrutiny of councils claiming accreditation levels for their employees and we tried to convince them that if it was going to be that easy to get accreditation, what was the point?

They tried to convince us that there were "unqualified" people employed at councils who were carrying out building inspections and we tried to convince them that this was gossip and we dared them to name two councils. They couldn't.

We weren’t able to convince them of anything we like and they couldn't convince us that any form of accreditation regime was worthwhile, added value to public policy or did anything useful at all - in fact, for us it's all negative. We might have had more luck trying to negotiate a peace settlement in the Middle East.

It does seem strange however, that here we were talking to two planners about a regime which the government intends won't apply to planners - it will apply only to building surveyors or people doing the sort of work that historically was the province of building surveyors when the old guild mentality of local government existed prior to 1993.

Many of you will remember when the different professions hated each other and insisted that all professions bar their own were sub-professional. It didn't help local government at all and it failed to acknowledge that for two different professional groups like building surveyors and planners, there were overlapping, complementary and even common skills. In many ways it was a reflection of a lack of self-esteem amongst professions anxious about how they were perceived by their professional colleagues.

The good news was that they did agree that they would respond to our letter of 18 December and all the questions we asked. They were also very, very enthusiastic that we send a submission to the accreditation proposals and we are happy to respond positively to this request. Here is a link for a submission sent to the BPB today.

Sue and Neil aren't the only ones to keep the guild hostility alive

One of the annoying things Neil says is that there are unqualified people in the industry carrying out building inspections. We think he is wrong and possibly even making it up. At best it is gossip and at worst it's a porky.

But Neil is not the only one who says this. In an e-mail on 24 February to members of the NSW AIBS, Executive Officer Bill Burns said this:

"Since then (1993) Local Government has employed non-qualified persons to practice as Building Surveyors." And this too

"Many Building Surveyors’ job functions in local government have already been re-cast and taken by unqualified persons and so continues to threaten the survival of the profession."

We don't know whether the AIBS regards planners as "unqualified persons" or whether the AIBS thinks the same thing as Neil: that somewhere out there (they think west of the Great Dividing Range) there are people with no qualifications inspecting buildings.

We wrote to Bill (he is, after all, a life member of depa) and asked him and we'll keep you posted. Here is the email we sent.

Urgent survey: Any unqualified people out there?

We don't believe the people who keep saying that there are unqualified people doing inspections but, unlike the BPB, we would like to know. As we say in our submission, once someone has some facts, then the other one must either put up or shut up.

On Friday we will e-mail our delegate at each of the councils we have identified as being at risk because they are on what the BPB believes to be the wrong side of the Great Dividing Range. We need a response from each council to tell us if any unqualified people are doing building inspections. Ideally, we would like to know whether the people doing inspections are building surveyors, health and building surveyors, planners or anything else. Delegates can expect this e-mail and this is one where we really do need your response. Other members can encourage the delegate to do the right thing for us.

We don't have members at a number of these councils and encourage anyone who knows anyone at the councils listed below to contact them and find out what's happening there:

• Balranald
• Bombala
• Brewarrina
• Conargo
• Coonamble
• Hay
• Murrumbidgee
• Narrabri
• Snowy River
• Temora
• Tumbarumba
• Urana
• Walcha
• Wentworth

You could also try and recruit some members while you are at it, if you like. We’ll even give you a bottle of wine if you sign up a member in a council on that list. A good one too. Bottle of wine that is, not member.

BPB CEO Neil Cocks replies

On 17 February we received an e-mail to which was attached an undated letter from BPB CEO Neil Cocks which, because it thanks us for our letter of 18 December and says "I am happy to make the following comments in relation to the questions you have raised" we assume is meant to be a reply.

You can use this link to read the letter yourself and we will, in time, respond in some detail to it but here is the second paragraph of the letter that made us wonder whether there was any point in doing so:

"During this time (the past five years) the Department and Board have consulted with DEPA, the Local Government and Shires Associations (LGSA) and other stakeholders on the best way to improve the standard of certification. This consultation culminated in the proposals that are currently an exhibition".

Comment: Dammit, they're claiming that consulting with us, amongst other people, culminated in the proposals. See paragraph 1.

Any event, as far as I can recall we've only met with them once in that period and that was about their right to examine council files at Burwood Council.

And in March, time for something different

The intrusive nature of BPB accreditation will mean that building regulation is the only responsibility of local government legislated by the State Government where that State wants some control over who does the work. That's a big issue.

But next month, along with a more detailed reply to Neil's 10 February letter, will provide a depaNews with something else other than the Department of Planning and the BPB.

Finally, read our submission below:

 

26 February 2009

Dear Neil

Submission responding to BPB proposals for the accreditation of local government employees

Thank you for the opportunity you provided to President Kerry Hunt and I to meet with you and BPB President Sue Holliday on 10 February. I also acknowledge receipt of your letter e-mailed on 17 February in which you make an effort to respond to our letter and questions of 18 December 2008.

We remain implacably and resolutely opposed to the BPB's proposals. We reject the arguments contained in your letter and will respond separately to that.

We continue to oppose the accreditation of local government employees because:

Despite the way you would present responses at the recent stakeholder seminars, there is significant hostility amongst the very employees you would have accredited in this intrusive process. Many have been carrying out this work for decades and would not, under your proposed regime, be able to continue to do so. You should not underestimate the hostility of the industry to this intrusive initiative which cannot add any value to consumers, public safety or quality in the construction of buildings.

I am surprised at the feedback from our members and how many of them don't intend to seek accreditation.

Yours etc

 

Ian Robertson

Secretary