Mr. Alan Isdell:

To outline the procedure a building surveyor goes through to get admitted onto the register for building surveyors, there is a technical assessment board and the building surveyors hoping to get onto the register would have to submit details of their work experience in various areas. If they do not tick all of those boxes, they do not get onto the register and they will have to go back and do other training. The provision is there in terms of the admissions board. There is also a technical assessment board for where issues of a technical nature need assessment. We have had some, whereby people working in the industry for quite a number of years maybe do not have the professional qualification but are trying to come through on a technical route. This is fair enough, as people who have experience and who are competent should have a route to registration, and the technical assessment board will assess their competence.

Senator Coffey used the key word "competence" when he spoke, and I am now moving towards the building side of the equation. I draw the Senator's attention to the definition of "competence" in the proposed Bill, and I have an issue with it. Section 7 of the Bill speaks about competence being relevant work undertaken or relevant education qualifications or a combination of both. Looking at this definition, one could say somebody who has educational qualifications could get onto the register. To me this does not sit with the definitions we have had traditionally in the industry. The definition under health and safety legislation, for example, comprises three things, namely, relevant knowledge, training and experience. The definition under the code of practice for inspecting buildings and certifying buildings is relevant knowledge, training and experience. This definition should probably follow through to make sure members who are CIRI registered have the appropriate competence. This is to try to address the issue of competence on the building side of the equation. I hope it is of use.