Built Environment Professions Bills: discussion

PUBLIC WORKS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
14 August 2000
BUILT ENVIRONMENT PROFESSIONS BILLS: DELIBERATIONS

Documents Handed Out:
Report from the Department of Public Works on the Public Hearings of 6-7 June 2000 concerning the proposed Built Environment (See Appendix 1)
Legislation & Preparation Document: Public Works Portfolio Committee (See Appendix 2)

SUMMARY
The Department of Public Works presented its summary and response to the submissions made at the Public Hearings of 6-7 June 2000 concerning the proposed Built Environment Legislation.

A lengthy discussion ensued as to whether the Engineering Council of South Africa, observers at this meeting and a presenter at the hearings, should be given an opportunity to comment on the report. Instead they were invited to make a written comment.

The committee discussed the report and adopted it as a true reflection of what had transpired at the hearings.

Some proposed amendments to the Built Environment Legislation, arising from the hearings, were tabled by the Department and discussed. The main issues raised included the question of the number of members who would serve on the Council for the Built Environment, its funding, the term of office of the president, vice president and members of the various Councils as well as the principle of peer judgement.

MINUTES
Report from the Department of Public Works on the Public Hearings
Mr Spencer Hodgson, the Chief Director for the Construction Industry Development Programme in the Department of Public Works, addressed the committee on the Department's report of Public Hearings of 6-7 June 2000 concerning the proposed Built Environment Legislation. The report encompassed a summary of the key issues raised during the hearings by the various role players as well as the Department's responses to these issues. The key issues raised by the parties were the following:

1. The principle of peer judgement in relation to other principles
2. The disciplinary procedure in relation to the constitutional requirements
3. The role of the Council for the Built Environment (CBE) as an overarching council which must ensure the equal application of policy
4. Funding of the CBE
5. Representation on the CBE and the need to keep the structures as small as possible
6. The establishment of a Council for the Construction and Project Management Professions
7. The term of office of members, president and vice-president
8. Consultation on the publication of rules and the need for transparency
9. Exemption of the mining industry from the Bills.
10.Training of candidate-architects under professionals in foreign countries

After the report was presented, the Chairperson, Chief M Hlengwa (IFP) asked members if the report was a true reflection of what had transpired at the hearings.

Mr S Opperman (DP) said that the DP needed time to discuss the report.

Legislation & Preparation Document
Mr Buks Annandale, Director of Legal Services at the Department of Public Works presented a "preparation document to the committee'' which identified certain crucial sticking points which had emerged at the hearings and suggested certain amendments which the committee could consider.

Representation on the CBE and the need to keep the structure as small as possible According to Section 5 of the Council for the Built Environment Bill, the council consists of a maximum of 28 members as follows:
1 representative from the Department of Public Works
4 representatives from other Government Departments
12 representative from the various councils
6 representative from the various voluntary associations
5 representative from the public

The Department recommended that the number of members of the CBE be reduced to 10, keeping the policy principle of 60/20/20 representation in mind:
2 representative from Government of which 1 must be in the employ of the Department of Public works.
6 representative from the various councils
2 representative from the public

Mr Annandale said that certain consequential amendments would have to be made to Sections 5 and 6 (see the document).

Term of office of the members of the various Councils
The feeling at the hearings was that it would be better if the offices of president and vice president rotated amongst members and that they not be coupled to a specific term.

Gaining of experience by architect candidates abroad
The Department pointed out that the gaining of experience by candidates abroad was in fact allowed.

Discussion
Mr S Abram (UDM) said that since there were some representatives of the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA), it may be wise to hear their reactions to the report presented by the Department. He said that this would enable the committee to take a more informed stand.

Ms G Borman (DP) supported the proposal to hear from ECSA in response to the Department.

A member from the ANC agreed with hearing from ECSA and asked what were the amendments to Sections 5 and 6 Mr Annandale had referred to.

Ms Lydia Bici, the Deputy Director General for the National Public Works Program, said that these were consequential amendments to reflect the change in the number of representatives.

Ms Bici said that they appreciated the fact that the Committee wanted to give ECSA the opportunity to comment on Department's report. However she felt that the process would be more transparent if all bodies who had a direct interest in the Bill and who had perhaps already made submissions on the Bill, were aware of this process so that they could also give comments on the Department's report.

Mr Abram agreed in principle with the Ms Bici's suggestion that all other interested parties should be given an opportunity to respond to the Department. However because of ECSA's presence, the meeting may benefit from their comments, not that anyone was bound to accept any comments made. The ECSA could perhaps shed some light on how the private sector viewed the responses of the Department.

Mr Opperman (DP) felt that that the Department's report should be sent to all the stakeholders in order to get their viewpoints.

Mr Hodgson said that the report was not an opportunity for the Department to express its comments. The report was merely a reflection of the key issues that were discussed. What was necessary was for the Committee to decide whether it was a true reflection of the discussion and of the key issues. There was no need to go back to the stakeholders to require them to check on the comments. If something critical was left out or misrepresented then the report should be revised to reflect this. The Committee on its own as the representatives of the South African people, had to decide whether the legislation needed to undergo any further amendment on the basis of those public hearings.

Ms O Kasienyane (ANC) suggested that the ECSA should be asked to recuse themselves for a few minutes so that committee could address the Department.

The Chairperson said that if ECSA was allowed to comment, this would amount to second public hearings, and then all other stakeholders would have to be invited. ECSA had not been invited to the meeting. They had made a request that they be present to listen to what was being reported. This had been agreed to. He agreed with Ms Kasienyane that ECSA be excused so that the members could take the process further with the Department.

A representative of ECSA admitted that they had not come to give a presentation, but had requested and hounded the chairperson and his secretary to be present. They did however want to clarify certain issues, orally or in writing, which they believed may have been misunderstood and which could have a definite and direct impact on the Committee's decision-making.

The Chairperson said that the committee would prefer a written submission.

Mr Abram commented that since parliamentary committee meetings were open to the public, ECSA had every right to remain in the meeting. The Chairperson agreed with this but noted that there were certain restrictions attached to this. It was decided to break so that parties could consider the report and on a way forward.

Afternoon session
The Chairperson asked if parties were able to take positions on the report:

Party positions on the report
Democratic Party
Mr Opperman said that the Democratic Party had listened to ECSA during the break and there certain points which the ECSA were not happy with in the report as they were not a true reflection of what had been said. Mr Opperman continued that If the departmental officials, with their expertise, could not capture correctly one or two issues of the ECSA submission, then this illustrated the reason for the DP wanting stakeholders to be given the opportunity to come back to the committee. Thus the DP could not fully endorse the report of the Department.

The Chairperson invited Mr Opperman to elaborate on what the DP saw as not being captured correctly in the report but this opportunity was not exercised.

African National Congress
Mr B Radebe (ANC) said that Mr Opperman was jumping the gun. All the study groups had to do was to decide whether the report truly reflected what had transpired at the hearings. The ANC felt that the report reflected all the inputs made at the hearings and as such should be adopted. Only then could it be decided whether anything had to be added to or subtracted from the report. It would be wrong to wait for other people to comment on the report. Only after the committee had gone through the report and decided that there was a need to invite comment on the report, should it do so. The report spoke of the key issues addressed, for example funding of the council and peer judgement. It could not be denied that these issues had been raised. ECSA had approached the ANC as well, not only the DP and NNP. What ECSA wanted was for amendments to be made to suit them.

Inkatha Freedom Party
On behalf of the IFP, the Chairperson said that the IFP saw the report as a true reflection of what had transpired at the public hearings.

Discussion of the Department's report
Mr Opperman said that they were not the experts. Whether the report was a true reflection of what transpired, was not the members' responsibility to decide upon. This responsibility lay with the persons making the submissions. The representative from the NNP agreed with the DP.

Mr Abram, Ms Borman, Mr Opperman and a few other members admitted not being present at all the hearings since they had to attend other meetings. They were thus not in a position to say whether the report was a true reflection of what transpired.

Mr S Abram added that there was an organisation representing previously disadvantaged engineers. He did not know whether any representations had been received from them and whether the list of organisations listed in the report had any connection to such an organsiation but he felt that in the making of legislation the Committee needed to get input from such people.

Ms Borman said that ECSA had said that the report had not captured what they had said. On this basis, all other parties should therefore be brought back.

Ms Bici said that the process of the Bill and consultation with stakeholders had been going on for four years already. All stakeholders as well as the previously disadvantaged had been involved in the process. The reason that some organisations did not make presentations was because they supported the Bill. The implication of what ECSA was saying - that what they had submitted was misunderstood - was a bit presumptuous. The Department had been through the debates with ECSA and understood where they were coming from. The Department did have differences of opinion with other stakeholders in relation to transforming the professions and achieving transparency.

Mr Radebe asked the Department whether the report reflected the views of a particular stakeholder or whether it reflected the views of the majority of the stakeholders making representations, since he did not feel that the process could be bogged down by a single stakeholder when there were so many making inputs.

Mr Hodgson said that the discussion with stakeholders could easily go on for another four years if one wanted to go that route. The report contained the views of all the stakeholders present at the hearings and was based on the discussions and submissions made. Any statement in the report could be tracked to the written submissions as well. There had been no clear example forthcoming on a specific misrepresentation or misquote. The Committee should be in a position to say whether the report reflected the issues not only on the basis of the hearings but also of the written submissions. To go back to the stakeholders would open another process of year of debate and no progress would be made.

The Chairperson said there was not a single member who could point out something in the report which did not occur. This was quite sad, given the opposition of the NP and DP and that the public hearings occurred in the presence of all the members.

Ms Borman said that a contentious issue was the question of Peer Judgement. If one was able to track how many of the stakeholders referred to this strongly, it was clear that the Department was taking a line which the professionals did not want. She asked for some guidance on this.

Mr Sigwela (ANC) said that the question of Peer Judgement was the main topic of discussion at the hearings. It seemed to be the one which touched a "raw nerve" with ECSA in particular because they felt that creating a council, above the councils which currently existed, would deny professionals from questioning their peers when there were complaints. They therefore did not see the desirability of having the CBE.

Mr Opperman said that the DP would accept the report as a basis for discussion.

The Chairperson went page by page through the report and asked the members to raise any problems as he went through the report.

Mr Radebe referred to 5.4 on the funding of the CBE where it was stated that "The Department is prepared to cover the initial costs of establishing the CBE until it can function independently." He felt that this sentence was too open-ended and had to have a fixed time-frame since the issue of "functioning independently" could take ten years or two years or even six months. Thus the CBE had to have a target of when it would be able to function independently.

Mr Opperman asked, on the issue of Peer Judgement, whether persons from the CBE would be in a position to take decisions on appeal in respect of very technical issues, since this would be one of its functions.

The Chairperson reminded the committee that they would attend to these issues in their clause-by-clause deliberations. The Committee them commented on the document outlining the Department's proposed amendments.

Discussion of Department's proposed amendments
Representation on the CBE and the need to keep the structures as small as possible
Mr Radebe said that it had been proposed by the Department that the CBE be reduced from 28 members to 10, with 60% professional persons, 20% from the Department and 20% from the public. The ANC study group felt that there had to be a structure which would be able to deliver. A council of ten was too small to deal with all the issues since the CBE would hear all appeal cases from engineers, architects and so on. In order for all the various specialisations to be attended to, it proposed that the reduction from 28 to 10 was too much and should rather be reduced to 20.

Ms Borman felt that unless the 20 members were to be divided up into sub committees to look at the different issues, she could not see how increasing the size would help. Very often it had been the experience that the smaller the committee, the more work one got done. She asked the Department how they had come up with 10 since it was quite a big reduction.

Ms Bici said that the Department was prepared to accept any figure which was brought by the committee.

Mr Hodgson said that the Engineering Council had 50 members so he could not see the problem with 20 for the CBE. Nevertheless the Department did not really have a problem with the numbers. Ms Bici said that there were other councils which could in future come under the CBE which could mean the members of the CBE could increase as well. The Urban Designers could establish their own councils and voluntary associations. If they came on board, automatically that number increased.

The Chairperson said since there was the possibility of there being additional members to the CBE where new councils were formed, he viewed the legislation as enabling.

The DP still opted for 10 as a start but said that it was up to the CBE to decide on how many people they wanted since the maximum would still be 28.

Mr Annandale corrected Mr Opperman and said that the maximum would only be 28 as long as there were only 6 professions falling under the CBE.

Ms Borman felt that the legislation should be written in such a way as to provide for representation of new professional bodies.

The Chairperson suggested that the Bill had to be left as is until the committee discussed each clause in detail when parties had to come up with their positions.

Term of office of the president, vice president and members of the Councils
Mr Radebe asked about the request expressed at the hearing that it would be better to have the offices rotated amongst members and not coupled to a specific term.

Mr Hodgson said that in some of the councils it was felt that it was not appropriate, in terms of their experience, to appoint a president or presiding officer for as long as 4 years. In some instances they wanted as little as one year. The Department felt that this was not a fundamental issue, and if this was the way the councils wanted to function, the Department should not impose. The Councils should decide. This would not apply to the CBE since the presiding officers would be appointed by the Minister.

Mr Radebe said that it had to be added that a president could serve for a maximum of two terms. If it was less than this it would be even better.

Architect candidates should be allowed to gain experience abroad
Mr Hodgson said that no further changes were needed to ensure this. The legislation does not block the possibility of candidates gaining experience abroad. This was confirmed by Mr Annandale's presentation.

The meeting was concluded.


Appendix 1
PALIAMENTARY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
REPORT ON PUBLIC HEARINGS OF 6-7 JUNE 2000
ON THE PROPOSED BUILT ENVIRONMENT LEGISLATION

1. INTRODUCTION
Due to the extent and potential impact of the seven Bills on the built environment professions, the Portfolio Committee on Public Works convened public hearings to afford all interested parties to make representation to the Portfolio Committee. The public hearings were held on 6 and 7 June 2000 and this report provides a summary of the presentations made.

2. PARTIES WHO MADE SUBMISSIONS
The following parties made submissions to the Portfolio committee with the view to the public hearings:
· The Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA)
· The Institute for Professional Engineering Technologists (IPET)
· The South African Institute of Civil Engineering (SAICE)
· The South African Council for Valuers
· The South African Council for Quantity Surveyors
· The Board of Control for Landscape Architects
· The South African Council for Architects (SACA)
· The KwazuluNatal Institute for Architecture
· The South African Association of Consulting Engineers (SAACE)
· ProQS, Harrismith
· The Urban Design Institute of South Africa
· Reef Projects
· Alliance of Development Professions
· The South African Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors (SAFSEC)
· A E Goldstein (Consulting Engineer)
· Interim Steering Committee for the South African Council for Project and Construction Management
· Chamber of Mines
· University of Cape Town.


3. PARTIES WHO PRESENTED THEIR SUBMISSIONS TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
· The Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA)
· The Institute for Professional Engineering Technologists (IPET)
· The South African Institute of Civil Engineering (SAICE)
· The South African Council for Valuers
· The South African Council for Quantity Surveyors
· The South African Council for Architects (SACA)
· The KwazuluNatal Institute for Architecture
· The South African Association for Consulting Engineers (SAACE)
· Interim Steering Committee for Project and Construction Management
· Chamber of Mines.

4. ISSUES BROADLY REPRESENTING THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE INTERESTED PARTIES AT THE HEARINGS
The following items capture the views expressed by the various parties at the hearings
4.1 The various Councils, Institutes and other stakeholders demonstrated broad support for the legislation and the establishment of the Council for the Built Environment Professions (CBE).

4.2 In certain presentations valid language and editorial issues were identified that must be dealt with by the Department and the State Law Advisers.

4.3 The key issues raised by the parties were the following:
· The principle of peer judgement in relation to other principles
· The disciplinary procedure in relation to the Constitutional requirements
· The role of the CBE as an overarching council which must ensure the equal application of policy
· Funding of the CBE
· Representation on the CBE and the need to keep the structures as small as possible
· The establishment of Council for the Construction and Project Management Professions
· The term of office of members, president and vice-president
· Consultation on the publication of rules and the need for transparency
· Exemption of the mining industry from the Bills.
· Training of candidate-architects under professionals in foreign countries

The gist of the issues raised is captured below together with the responses of the Department of Public Works.

5. DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES

5.1 Peer Judgement
· Issue raised by parties
The majority of professions contend that the principle of peer judgement is not supported by the proposed legislation, and that an appeal to the CBE ignores this very important principle because only peers (of the same profession) can judge whether a particular professional is guilty of misconduct.


Further objection to the CBE as an appeal body is that it will place the CBE in a superior position vis-a-vis the Councils.

· Response by the Department (and supported by the State Law Advisors)
Peer judgement and all other Administrative Law principles should apply equally with regard to statutory bodies. By providing for an appeal procedure to the CBE, the principle of peer judgement is not only upheld but in addition the rules of natural justice are given full effect. The proposed legislation makes provision for 2 professionals to sit in hearing of the first enquiry as well as during the appeal conducted by the CBE. Establishing the CBE as an appeal body does not influence the status of the Councils it merely promotes transparency so as to avoid any perception of conspiracy to sweep things under the carpet.

5.2 Disciplinary procedure in relation to the Constitution
· Issue raised by the parties
Certain parties feel that the proposed disciplinary procedure will be too costly and therefore the appeal should lie with the Councils who conducted the first enquiry.

· Response by the Department
In terms of the Constitution which entrenches the principle of just administrative action, a person cannot be both player and referee.

Therefore it will be unconstitutional if legislation makes provision for an appeal to be lodged with the body (a Council) that heard the enquiry in the first place (which will result in that body being both player and referee).

5.3 Role of the CBE as an overarching body which must ensure the equal application of policy
· Issue raised by the parties
The CBE must confine itself to promoting the policy issues regarding the built environment. The contention is that the word "ensure" used in section 4 of the Council for the Built Environment Act, which gives the CBE the power to ensure the equal application of policy with regard to certain matters, is too strong. The CBE's role should be restricted to a co-ordinating function.

· Response by the Department
In order for the CBE to add any value to Government or the professions in general it must be equipped with powers to ensure coordination between the professions. The consultative Forum for the Built Environment (government and all the professions involved in the 5-year process of policy formulation) accepted this principle, as well as the wording of section 4 of the Council for the Built Environment Act.

5.4 Funding of the CBE
· Issue raised by the parties
The Government should cover the costs for the operation of the CBE, as its establishment and functioning will benefit the public.

· Response by the Department
The Department is prepared to cover the initial costs of establishing the CBE until it can function independently. Major benefit is to the professions themselves as well as to the clients of the professions. The public at large receives least benefit of all and carries a substantial amount of the cost in paying for part of the participation of the representatives of the Government that will sit on all the Councils and the CBE. Therefore, the ongoing cost of the CBE should be covered by the professions through their annual registration fees. Part, if not all, of this cost will be passed on to clients thus ensuring that the cost is shared by those who benefit most.

5.5 Representation on the CBE and the need to keep the structures as small as possible
· Issue raised by the parties
The engineering profession contend that their number and the different disciplines that they represent require that they should have weighted voting power on the CBE. Furthermore it is of primary importance that the size of the structures must be contained.

· Response by the Department
Representation on the CBE should not be linked to numbers because the CBE will be established to deal with policy issues in the professions and not with profession-specific issues. The Department agrees that the structures should be as small as possible and would welcome a reduction in the size of the CBE. The current formula for representation reflects the wishes of the existing Councils and was agreed to by the Forum for the Built Environment.

The establishment of the Council for the Project and Construction Management Professions

· Issue raised by the parties
The Engineering Council of South Africa and the South African Institute for Civil Engineers contend that construction and project management is one of the functions of an engineer. It does not form a profession on its own. Furthermore the establishment of a council for this profession is premature. This issue should be dealt with by the CBE.

These institutions also object to the requirement for their members to have to demonstrate competence and to register as Project Managers.

The Interim Steering Committee for the Construction and Project Management Professions expressed support for the establishment of that council.

· Response by the Department
The Department is of the opinion that project management is a skill not necessarily possessed by persons with engineering qualifications and has identified a Steering Committee as a pre-runner for the establishment of a Council. The mandate was to develop a course and standards with regard to the accreditation of project managers.

Currently any professional (Engineer, Architect, Quantity Surveyor, etc) can claim to be a "Project Manager" without having to demonstrate the necessary competence. Recognition of this profession is vital to public sector delivery.

5.7 Term of office of members, the president and vice-president
· Issue raised by the parties
Certain parties contend that the Bills should provide for the Councils to appoint the president and vice-president for a term determined by the members. Another issued raised with regard to membership is the legislation does not provide adequately for the principle of continuity; that members should be allowed to serve on the Councils indefinitely and their term of office should not be limited to 2 terms of 4 years each.

· Response by the Department
With regard to the term of office of the president and vice-president the Department has no objection to the inclusion of a provision as requested even though it was agreed to by the Built Environment Forum. With regard to the indefinite term of office of members of the Councils, the Department is of the opinion that rapid global change, development and innovation within the professions, requires the continuous rejuvenation of leadership and that two 4-year terms of office provides adequately for the principle of continuity.

5.8 Consultation on the publication of rules and the need for transparency
· Issue raised by the parties
The professions are of the opinion that they should not be forced to publish their proposed rules for public comment, as this is an internal matter and publication is costly.

· Response by the Department
For the sake of transparency and good governance and in the spirit of our new Constitution, the Department is of the opinion that publication of rules is invaluable.


5.9 Exemption of mining industry from the Bills
· Issue raised by the Chamber of Mines
The Chamber of Mines is exempt from the current Acts. They are of the opinion that this exemption should be retained. The proposed legislation overlaps with the legislation that regulates mining health and safety.

· Response by the Department
The proposed legislation makes provision for the Minister to exempt a council, person or industry from the provisions of any of the Bills after a process of consultation with the effected parties. The Department is of they opinion that the prescribed consultation process will grant the mining industry sufficient opportunity to establish the principles for an exemption. With regard to the possible overlap of the legislation the Department recommends that the issue be referred to the State Law Advisors.

5.10 Training of candidate-architects under professionals in foreign countries
· Issue raised by the parties
The South African Council for Architects indicated that there is a need for candidate architects who train in foreign countries to have their experience recognised.

· Response by the Department
The practise of gaining experience from a person outside South Africa is to the benefit of the profession, as new ideas will enhance the profession. The legislation can be adapted to enable recognition of experience gained in foreign countries.

Appendix 2
PREPARATION DOCUMENT: PUBLIC WORKS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE

In view of the report on the public hearings of 6 and 7 June 2000 on the proposed built environment legislation, the following possible amendments to the various pieces of legislation can be considered by the Portfolio Committee:

1. REPRESENTATION ON THE CBE AND THE NEED TO KEEP THE STRUCTURES AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE
The composition of the Council for the Built Environment is regulated in section 5 of the Council for the Built Environment Bill. As the section currently reads the Council consists of a maximum of 28 members as follows:

1 representative from the Department of Public Works
4 representatives from other Government Departments
12 representatives from the various Councils
6 representatives from the various voluntary associations
5 representatives from the public

We recommend that the number of members of the CBE be reduced to 10, keeping the policy principle of 60/20/20 representation in mind:

2 representatives of the Government of which 1 must be in the employ of the Department of Public Works
6 representatives from the various Councils (1 from each of the Councils)
2 representatives from the public.

Consequential amendments will have to be made to section 6 and any cross-references will have to be corrected.

If the above recommendation is accepted we recommend that sections 5 and 6 be amended as follows:

Section 5(2
Section 5(2) of the Bill should be replaced with the following subsection:

"(2) The council consists of the following members, taking into account, among other things, appropriate representation of race, gender and disability-
one representative from each council for the professions;
two representatives in the service of the State nominated by any sphere of government, of whom at least one must be nominated by the department; and
not more than two persons nominated, from the nominations contemplated in section 6(2)(b), by the public through an open process of public participation."

Section 6(1)(a)
Delete the references to the voluntary associations for the built environment professions and to subsection 5(2)(d).

Section 6(1)(b)
Replace reference to section 5(2)(e) with a reference to 5(2)(c).

Section 6(2)(a)
Replace with the following subsection:
"when nominations in terms of section 5(2)(a) or (b) become necessary, the council must invite the state departments referred to in section 5(2)(a) and the councils for the professions to nominate within the period specified, persons who qualify for nomination in terms of section 5(2)(a) and (b);"

Section 6(2)(b)
Replace the reference to section 5(2)(e) with a reference to section 5(2)(c).

Section 6(3)(a)
Delete the reference to the voluntary association for the built environment profession.

Section 8(1)(f) and 8(2)(e)
Replace reference to section 5(2)(c) and (d) with a reference to section 5(2)(a).


2. The term of office of the members of the various Councils and the president and vice-president
The term of office of the president and the vice-president of the various Councils are regulated by section 7 of the different Bills for the professions. Section 7(1)(b) determines that these members hold office for a period of 4 years from the date of their appointment. The feeling was expressed at the public hearing that it would be better if these offices rotated amongst members and that it not be coupled to a specific term. If the proposal is accepted then section 7(1) may be amended as follows:

" 7. (1)(a) The members of the council must elect a president and vice-president and determine their term of office, at the first meeting of the council and thereafter at the expiry of the term of office of each president and vice-president.

The president and vice-president must be registered persons and at least one must actively practise in the ……………….profession."

3. Candidates should be allowed to gain experience abroad
An opinion was expressed that the candidates should be granted the opportunity to gain experience abroad. After researching the matter it appears that the Bills do not disallow the gaining of experience in foreign countries. Section 19 doesn't require practical experience for the registration of a professional it merely requires the demonstration of competence against standards set by the Council. Section 18(3) requires a candidate to perform work under the supervision of a professional. This section was inserted to prevent candidates from working on their own without assistance from a professional. This section cannot be open to a wider interpretation and allow work under persons other than professionals. These Acts will not apply in foreign countries so it will not prevent candidates from working under foreign professionals. Councils will still be in a position to accept foreign experience if they set the standards as provided for in section 19 to accommodate foreign training.