The Bill, which has already been approved for adoption by the National Assembly's Portfolio Committee on Public Works, proposes the consolidation of the six existing professional councils into a new South African Council for the Built Environment (SACBE).

This new body would be the sole juristic entity for the built-environment professions and would incorporate the councils into six subsidiary professional boards covering engineers, architects, quantity surveyors, landscape architects, project and construction managers and property valuers.

The structure, as proposed by the Department of Public Works (DPW), is meant to streamline the functioning and governance of the various professions operating within the built environment, while sustaining and improving the quality of the underlying academic and professional registration process.

However, most of the existing councils, as well as several voluntary associations and industry bodies have objected to the Bill, as well as the formation of a ‘super council'.

They argue that the proposed legislation and the SACBE could strip South Africa's technical professionals of their international standing, create an unwieldy and expensive bureaucracy and potentially lower standards.

There is particular concern that the registration process, which the Bill proposes becomes compulsory, foregoes examination and/or peer judgement in favour of a ‘tick-the-box-type' bureaucracy.

Some have even warned that there could be serious negative knock-on effects for public health and safety.

FURTHER DELIBERATION
Public Services select committee chairperson Raseriti Tau told Engineering News Online on Monday, that his committee would deliberate further on the matter during the working week starting November 10 - it could not convene earlier, as members were participating in a ‘Taking Parliament to the People' campaign in the Eastern Cape.

However, he indicated that the committee was likely to want further input on the proposed law, given some of the questions raised during a recent DPW briefing of the committee.

Tau, who is an African National Congress member from the Northern Cape, indicated that some in the committee even felt public hearings to be necessary. But he stressed that this was not because there was any disagreement with the objectives of the Bill, but given the serious implications on some "important" professions.

He said that, owing to the constraints associated with the Parliament's diary, further deliberations and/or possible public hearings could only realistically take place early next year.

DEPARTMENT WOULD WELCOME HEARINGS
Meanwhile, DPW policy unit director Devan Pillay told Engineering News Online that the department would welcome further public hearings into the Bill.

He acknowledged that there were perceptions that the DPW had under-consulted, as well as the receipt of letters from both Education Minister Naledi Pandor and Finance Minister Trevor Manuel, in which the Minister voiced concern about the Bill.

In his letter, Manuel had stated that "it is clear that insufficient consultation has gone into its (the Bill's) drafting". He also raised concern about the risk posed to the future quality of built-environment professionals, as well as the "interoperability of professionals from other countries".

Pillay responded by saying that the department had had subsequent meetings with officials from the National Treasury in a bid to allay these fears and that further consultations were now also planned with the Engineering Council of South Africa (Ecsa) which had emerged as the strongest opponent to the Bill.

He added that efforts were being made to seek guidance from the secretariats of the Washington and Dublin Accords, which currently reflected the international standing of South African engineers. In these engagements, DPW would seek to establish what transitional and permanent arrangements would be required in order to safeguard the global standing of South Africa-registered engineers.

"At worst, we believe this might require a reassessment of the new structure as well as the underlying credentials of accredited academic institutions and courses," Pillay averred.

He added that further meetings were also scheduled with the Department of Education to deal with Pandor's concerns about the possible conflict between the contents of the Built Environment Professions Bill and the National Qualifications Framework Bill, which was also wending its way through the Parliamentary process.

Pillay argued that the Bill would enhance coordination between professions, while aligning the professions to national imperatives such as transformation.

He said that there was still too much uncertainty around professional registration, which had frustrated some practitioners to the point of giving up on seeking professional registration.

"There are also serious governance concerns that need to be remedied," Pillay added, noting that none of the councils were currently in line with the Public Finance Management Act.