Built Environment Legislation: hearings

Meeting report

South Africa Association of Consulting Engineers
Mr P Silbernagl from the South Africa Association of Consulting Engineers supported the unification of the building industry. He is concerned about the cost of representivity, and emphasised that ways of reducing rather than increasing costs be explored. The Bill mainly serves the interests of Public Works and not the interests of the country as a whole. Mr Silbernagl said that the structure of the Bill needs further attention, and requested a forum or workshop where all building profession organisations can exchange ideas.

Engineering Council of South Africa
Mr P Roux said the provision for appeals against decisions of Professional Councils in the Council for the Built Environment (CBE) is unacceptable, and not consistent with the principle of peer judgement. The Appeal Committee of the CBE must be defined to include the profession concerned, and must be consistent with appeals in SA Law.
 
Mr Roux said the power of CBE is to “ensure” certain performance requires powers of sanction, which could be a threat to peer judgement. The CBE is created primarily to assist Government in certain justifiable functions, and the Bill should therefore make provisions for the definite contribution of the State. The cost of the CBE should be a public responsibility, and not a burden on registered persons. The CBE is representative of many professions, and should be as small a body as possible, with provisions for weighted representation, even if equal in numbers. He said the promulgation of the Projects and Construction Management Bill is premature, inappropriate and unacceptable, because the role and functions overlap significantly with existing professions. Mr Roux told the committee that the proposals had never been debated with the professions and other stakeholders, which is contrary to the requirements of openness and transparency. He strongly recommended referring this Bill to the CBE for detailed deliberation.

Discussion
Mr M Chikane (ANC) asked who will bear the costs of the CBE?

Mr P Roux said that the public should share the costs, because if the Council were responsible for their own costs, this would lead to the increase in the costs of registration of individuals. Additional costs should therefore be shared.

Mr J Slabbert (IFP) asked the presenters to elaborate on the Appeal Procedure.

Mr C Sardiwalla of ECSA informed the committee that the objective of the CBE is to end white male dominance. Transformation of past mindsets was difficult. There has been acceptance of the CBE which is aimed at restructuring the profession in respect of representation.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) asked why the provision for appeals against decisions of Professional Councils in the CBE is unacceptable and not consistent with the principle of peer judgement.

Mr Roux said that all professions are guided by peer judgement because their actions are determined by the profession’s code of ethics. This Bill will provide for the appointment of appropriate people. All disciplinary procedures have preliminary hearings, and when this procedure is exhausted, everyone will have access to the High Court. Dissatisfied litigants even have access to the appellate division of the High Court. The costs would be too high if the CBE is to be responsible for appeal mechanisms.

Mr Spencer from the State Law Advisors said that he agrees with ECSA’s proposal to use the Common Law review of Appeal.

Mr Roux concluded by expressing ECSA full support for the CBE Bill, and suggested that ‘ensure’ in Clause 4 be replaced with the word ‘promote’.

South African Council for Valuers
The Council disagreed with the four year time period for the office of the president and the vice president of the council, and suggested that it be amended to ‘as the Council may determine at the time of election’.
- They felt that Clause 4(2) is unreasonable, as the costs for the advertisement could easily amount to R72 000.
- The definition of section 22(3) will prejudice many people in the profession, because a person cannot define and prescribe the practical experience, as there are 266 different fields in which experience can be gained.
- Clause 31(2)(a) should be amended to ‘two professionals with at least ten years experience’, because this could be impossible if there are only two other specialists in the same field.
- Clause 39(2)(3) should be deleted, as this special power of the Minister defeats the objects of this Bill.
Mr van Zyl welcomed the Minister’s undertaking to contribute 40 - 50% of the costs, and requested that it be included in Clause 17 of the Bill. Mr van Zyl concluded by saying they supported ECSA’s submission.

Discussion
Mr Moonsamy (ANC) disagreed with the proposal to allow the Council to decide on the term of office of the President and the Vice President. He said that this is undemocratic, and not in the spirit of our country’s Constitution. He proposed that the limit of two terms of office be retained.

Mr Chikane (ANC) asked how long is the training for evaluators?

Mr van Zyl replied that the proposal that Council decide on the term of office was so that they have the power not to lengthen it but shorten it, especially in the case of an elected president who proves incompetent. He said that theoretical and practical training depends on the individual involvement in the profession. If the individual is full time in the profession, then it usually takes about three years. Formal training is three years, which will soon increase to four years.

Mr Slabbert (IFP) asked why would it be a problem if the Minister has the authority to terminate the term of office.

Mr van Zyl said that if the Council is dissatisfied with their President, they do not want to follow the procedure of approaching the Minister, as this could be lengthy and complex. They therefore request that the president of the Council not be bound to the stipulated term.

The chairperson commented that there is a need for statutory instead of voluntary regulation as ECSA authority only extends to registered persons.

Mr Chikane (ANC) asked who could lodge a report with ECSA?
Mr Roux said that anyone who is aggrieved or a professional who witnesses public safety being endangered.

Council for South African Quantity Surveyors
Mr B Probert asked the committee if the professional fee scale would be recommended or statutory, because it will be published in the Government Gazette. He also requested that the Bill provide for a register of practices, because it is important to keep control of the various practices. Mr Probert said that the four year term of the President of the Council is onerous, and suggested that it be reduced to one or two years.

South African Council for Architects
Mr Knoetze expressed concern about Clause 18(3) of B17-2000 because some candidates complete their practical training in another country. Therefore their training would be supervised by a professional who is not a member of this Council but who is registered in his country of residence. Clause 26 deals with individuals, does this section extend to companies? Mr Knoetze said that disciplinary appeal procedures should be in the regulations and not in the Act.

Discussion
Mr Slabbert (IFP) asked how a suspended registered engineer could be prevented from continuing to practice.

Mr Roux said that it is a criminal offence for an unregistered architect to perform work reserved for architects. Current legislation provides that an unregistered person cannot take responsibility of the work performed. Section 17 of the Valuers Act prohibits persons from pretending to be valuers.

Mr R Hindle (Senior Lecturer at UCT)
Mr Hindle objected to the legislation and said that the most effective method of improving construction delivery would be to abandon the proposed Built Environment Professions Bills and to repeal the current Acts. He criticised the construction delivery process as ‘backward’. He said that the leaders in the profession are ineffective and that Government supports them through Acts that are barriers to innovation, development and change.