PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION REVIEW OF LEGISLATION REGULATING THE
ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION
PAPER PRESENTED TO THE INTER-GOVERNMENT WORKING PARTY BY
THE ARCHITECTS ACCREDITATION COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA
Background
The Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) is currently an Incorporated
Association comprising membership of all of the State and Territory Registration Boards in
Australia. The functions of the Boards are maintained for the public benefit through
registration of all architects in Australia.
AACA undertakes the following functions:

Application and ongoing maintenance of the National Competency Standards in
Architecture in Australia developed in 1993 as a result of Commonwealth Government
competency standard requirements for the professions.

Implementation of a National Program of Assessment developed to enable persons
without formal academic qualifications to become registered and enter the profession.

Promotion of National Legislative Guidelines developed by AACA to assist in the reform
towards national consistency.

Assessment of overseas applications for migration purposes from people holding
qualifications in their country of origin. (AACA is gazetted and contracted by the
Commonwealth Government to undertake this role)

Negotiation of mutual recognition agreements with overseas countries.

A party to the Federal Government’s proposed APEC Architects Program and negotiation
with ASEAN countries on mutual recognition.

Coordination of the National Architectural Practice Examination undertaken by all
applicants for registration.

Coordination of the accreditation of architectural courses both in Australia and overseas.
Since its inception in 1972, AACA has striven for equity and uniformity in the registration
process of architects in Australia. Through the development of the National Legislative
Guidelines, the National Practice Examination, the development of Competency Standards
along with a process for their application, and with involvement in the accreditation of
architectural courses, the objective of equity and uniformity on a national level has largely
been achieved. Current legislation throughout the various States and Territories is relatively
uniform and reviews of this legislation have begun to take cognizance of the Legislative
Guidelines.
1
In June 2000 AACA considered its position as an Association, and following professional
consultant’s advice, is now in the process of forming itself into company limited by
guarantee, with relevant changes to its governance. The company concept would see each
State and Territory jurisdiction as an equal ‘shareholder’ in the company. In addition at its
Council meeting in October 2000, AACA resolved to invite the Royal Australian Institute of
Architects to become a shareholder also. The diagram in the conclusion section of this paper
indicates the proposed structure.
Current legislation is outdated in many instances and AACA agrees with the findings of the
Productivity Commission on this point; but the process of updating has begun.
It is also AACA’s view that national currency of title is long overdue. Whether this should
extend to practice is perhaps debatable but again this matter has been on the AACA agenda
for some time as has the question of compulsory professional indemnity insurance and
continual professional development in the interests of consumer protection. It is from this
platform, therefore, that AACA makes the following recommendations for the future direction
of the architectural profession in Australia.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
That the recommendation of the Productivity Commission for the repeal of all
Architects Acts be rejected.
From the information available to AACA at this time, it appears likely that the majority, if
not all jurisdictions, will reject the Productivity Commission’s recommendation and opt
for retention of State and Territory based registration legislation.
Recommendation 2
That the concept of a Federally based system of State and Territory legislation be
retained but updated in accordance with the National Legislative Guidelines and
adopted by all States and Territories.
AACA’s original proposal to the Productivity Commission, in December 1999, was for a
National Act ie. Commonwealth legislation administered by a National Board, but if that
could not be achieved, then support for State and Territory based legislation with the
adoption of the National Legislative Guidelines.
Recommendation 3
That a National Code of Practice be adopted.
It is recommended that a National Code of Practice utilizing the State and Territory fair
trading legislation (Trade Practices Act Commonwealth) be put in place.
The Code would not replace existing legislation but rather would consolidate the role of
the State and Territory Boards as the primary accreditors and regulators of architecture,
particularly in terms of:-
2
(a) A once only registration of title: annual practice certificate.
(b) Uniform approach to complaint and disciplinary procedures at State and Territory
level:
(c) Uniform fee structures
The Code would complement the national currency of title listing of architects and
provide for the concept of Australian architect. The Australian architect would be bound
by the provisions of the Trade Practices Act just as State and Territory based architects
would be bound by that State or Territory’s Fair Trading legislation.
Given responses to date from the State and Territory Ministers responsible, the proposal to
implement a National Code of Practice has been well received. As a result, a draft has
been prepared and is being developed into a final document.
Recommendation 4
That a national system for currency of title be established
This has been variously referred to as a national register, national listing, and the like.
The concept is simple; an analogy is the issuing of a driver’s licence. If a person were
registered in one jurisdiction, that person would be automatically registered in all other
jurisdictions. Such registration would carry the right of title but not of practice. This is
slightly different from mutual recognition legislation, which only entitles registration in
other jurisdictions. The currency of title concept also goes a little further than the driver’s
licence analogy by establishing a national listing of all registered architects so that the
registration of all architects in Australia is consolidated in one location. The States and
Territories would have to agree a method of ensuring the national listing is always current
and only individual States and Territories Boards would have access to alter the National
listing in respect of their own registers. This would further strengthen the concept of an
Australian architect.
The concept of a listing of all registered architects in Australia has already been agreed to
by all State and Territory Boards.
A national listing is supported by the Productivity Commission (Report Page 199)
Recommendation 5
A two-tier registration system with the introduction of a practice certificate.
The National Legislative Guidelines provide for a two-tier system of registration allowing
use of the generic title “architect” by those having appropriate qualifications, professional
experience and are registered (the first tier) and for those who wish to provide services to
the public as a “practicing architect,” an annually renewable practice certificate would be
a requirement (the second tier). National listing would apply to both categories. The
concept of practicing certificate is not new and already is required in the ACT, New
Zealand, Singapore & Hong Kong.
3
Recommendation 6
That the roles currently undertaken by the Boards be separate from and not fused in
any way with the professional body. The national body, recommended by AACA,
would be discrete from the registration and accreditation processes.
The concept of a national body managing the processes undertaken by AACA has been
approved by all State and Territory Boards.
Conclusions.
The system, which currently prevails in Australia, is respected and applauded overseas. It
is cost efficient and relatively uniform and with the adoption of the above
recommendations would satisfy many, if not most, of the Productivity Commission’s
justified criticism.
Put succinctly, AACA is well placed to continue its current role but as a national company
limited by guarantee (see diagram of model attached).
The Boards are well placed to continue in their role and as integral partners in AACA, for
it is the Boards who are AACA.
With updating of legislation to reflect contemporary standards either through the adoption
of the National Legislative Guidelines or through harmonised legislation; the adoption of
a National Code of Practice; and the establishment of a national system of currency of
title, all of which are readily achievable, the main thrust of the Productivity Commission’s
recommendations, other than repeal of the Acts, would be met. All of this can be
achieved at minimum cost to the public
There is more to the issues raised in the review of legislation of architects than simply the
issue of registration. Consequential outcomes of all attending responsibilities must also be
addressed and already negotiations on mutual recognition agreements with the UK and the
USA have had to be put on hold because of the Productivity Commissions
recommendations.
4
AACA MODEL
NATIONAL COORDINATING BODY
(Company limited by guarantee)
Responsible for national listing of practising architects
QLD
BOARD
NSW
BOARD
ACT
BOARD
VIC
BOARD
TAS
BOARD
SA
BOARD
WA
BOARD
NT
BOARD
RAIA
Consumer
Rep.
Employer/Employee
Rep.
NATIONAL CODE OF PRACTICE
5