BPB entices local government (but not us) into nasty ambush

Also in this issue:

• President Sue Holliday sets the trap
• Looks like trouble to us
• Local Government asks for its own consultation
• The trap is sprung
• Shame, Sue, Shame
• Who does the AIBS represent now?
• What should councils and council staff do now?

 

President Sue Holliday sets the trap

In an undated letter to the President of depa, Sue Holliday the newly installed President of the Building Professionals Board, extended an invitation "to discuss proposals to accredit council building certifiers". The invitation was extended to Kerry Hunt and "your representatives" on Wednesday 28 January and continues:

"Other major stakeholders have been invited to this meeting including Local Government Managers Australia, the Development and Environmental Professionals’ Association, the Association of Accredited Certifiers and the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors".

Looks like trouble to us

Everyone got the same letter and the obvious problem with the invitation was that while depa and LGSA oppose the accreditation of council staff and we don't know what the LGMA thinks, we know that the two private certifier lobby groups, namely the AIBS and the ACA, support the accreditation of council employees.

Why set aside two hours, under the guise of discussing proposals that affect only local government, and then invite people who have nothing to do with local government? What possible constructive benefit can come out of a meeting where two sides slog out their opposing views in front of a handful of BPB members and functionaries?

Despite New Year resolutions to the contrary, it was hard not to immediately presume the worst. The BPB had set up a meeting that could only be a fiasco and at the end of it, when the combatants had left the building, the BPB President and the other Board members could shake their heads and conclude that if both sides were opposed to it then obviously the BPB's proposals navigated a central path between the two sides and made sense. Worse, of course, after attending a meeting like that the BPB then publish a thank you for those who were consulted and for the contribution.

We know that the Government is good at setting up a facade of consultative mechanisms when they have already made their mind up. Our FOI application revealed this in 2008. Better not to be involved in another hoax – and this sure smelled like one.

Local Government asks for its own consultation

We wrote to the BPB CEO suggesting that we thought this was not going to be a good idea and that because this has its major impact upon councils and council employees, then local government deserved and should have a right to specific consultation: a proper meeting where we could work through our comprehensive list of questions (see our December depaNews) with people who should know the answers.

Here is our e-mail exchange with Neil.

The LGSA did similarly, writing to the President and pointing out that while representative bodies from the local government sector were invited, there were also representatives from outside local government, namely the AIBS and the ACA. The LGSA letter said:

"As the focus of the meeting is the proposed accreditation scheme for council (not private) certifiers, the Associations would request that the meeting be limited to organisations with members that will be directly affected by the proposed changes. The Associations believe that the meeting will be far more productive and effective if limited to Local Government representatives."

Sue Holliday rejected both our and the LGSA’s request - so we decided it was better not to go. They can respond to our letter instead.

The trap is sprung

But the LGSA thought they should go and responded that there were four critical considerations underpinning their attendance. They wanted their concerns about the need for a specific meeting with local government representatives noted and they reserved their rights to put in a final submission by 27 February.

Significantly, they wanted recorded that there was "a major disjuncture between the discussions held in July 2008 that involve LGSA representatives and the scheme that has been publicly exhibited. A number of comments were made by the facilitator at one of the workshops that misquoted Local Government's position on this issue and was used to justify elements of the scheme." And finally, that they would only attend future meetings if there is appropriate representation from local government and the meeting is correctly minuted.

What a surprise then for the LGSA that when they turned up for the meeting at Parramatta, there were other organisations attending which were not listed in the invitation letter. And, surprise surprise, they were groups uniformly antagonistic to local government: the Property Council, Archicentre, the Master Builders Association and the Housing Industry Association. The BPB had stacked the meeting with people that should have no say in a proposal that effects only local government and that are historically hostile to councils and council staff.

Shame, Sue, Shame

These four organisations have absolutely no right to provide input on a proposed regulatory regime accrediting council employees. Negotiation and consultation should be occurring between Government (and we count the BPB as Government) and the employer and the employee organisations in local government most affected. What do they know, or care, about the crucial issues of establishing parallel accountability, of tampering with the right of a council as an employer to manage an employment relationship with staff, of individual liability for council employees?

The invitation from the new President was a shameful ambush of local government and one which we were lucky to miss.

We'll chance our arm now with the relevant politicians with the assistance of Unions NSW.

Who does the AIBS represent now?

In the olden days, depa subsidised and shared office space with the AIBS and the AIEH - unnecessarily high union fees in the 1980s provided a subsidy of up to $70 per member for these two organisations. As time went by, the subsidy and the three organisations went their separate ways.

In the olden days, all members of the AIBS NSW Chapter, or whatever it was called, worked in local government. Apart from a minor hiccup in the late 1980s when the union and the AIBS began to develop different views on Local Government Minister David Hay’s changes to the Local Government Act to provide for some form of private certification (an amendment so hopeless and incomplete that no one took advantage of the opportunities) we all had amicable relations until the push for private certification drove a wedge between us.

AIBS still has a fair number of members in local government despite their historic view that everyone should be accredited under their own accreditation regime and doing their own professional training. Quite a good business model, when you think of it. Set up your own accreditation system that relies on people paying to do your own courses.

There are now 11 people on what is called the NSW Chapter State Executive Committee. Nine of them are from the private sector and only two work in councils - a Vice President from Sydney Council and a member from Bankstown. A smart move politically to appoint a local government person into one of the two Vice President positions because it looks like the organisation is serious about its representation of AIBS members in local government.

The December 2008 Newsletter from the AIBS summarises their submission to the BPB. Not only do they assert that "the accreditation of professional Building Surveyors is fundamental to professional practice together with its continuing CPD training (as long as its theirs!) that ensures practitioners are competent in carrying out their roles to ensure development controls” etc etc, but it gets worse.

The AIBS is critical that the draft proposal "falls far short of what would be seen as a reasonable community's expectation that an accredited person has an appropriate qualification or has been RCC and/or RPL assessed."

They complain that "the draft proposal not only allows non-qualified people to practice, but gives a smooth pathway to receiving accreditation without any qualification by only having to do one additional year above a qualified person to practice at B2 and B3 levels." … It is hard to believe, but it is true!"

Enough about the AIBS - apart from the fact that they go on to recommend a national training and accreditation regime using their scheme. Jeez, what about a declaration of conflict of interest? And by the way, they asked the rhetorical question as part of their commitment to their private certifiers base, "are we going to see a repetition of the heavy-handed approach that is applied to the private sector"? Heavy-handed? Some of them are lucky not to be in jail.

What should councils and council staff do now?

Make sure that you individually, collectively or through the Council make it abundantly clear by the time public submissions close on 27 February, that there are far too many questions arising from the BPB proposals affecting employment, employee liability and employment relations and ability of a council to properly regulate its relationship with its employees. And who needs a parallel responsibility to your employer to do the job properly and at the same time a responsibility to an accrediting regime?

A happy, rewarding and well-paid 2009 to you all

We all make New Year resolutions and one I made was to not necessarily assume malice or cleverness in trying to understand why something was happening, when stupidity or ignorance could be the explanation. Clearly the LGSA made a similar resolution in thinking it was okay to attend the BPB meeting. It must be important in their continuing relationship with the Department of Planning.

 

Ian Robertson

Secretary