Annual Report by the
Chartered Professional Engineers
Council
For the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In
the year under review the Chartered Professional Engineers Council (Council)
has, in addition to fulfilling its statutory functions, focussed its attention
on three keys areas:
a.
Clarification of the scope of its functions,
b.
Its relationship with the Department of Building and Housing (DBH),
c.
Matters concerning public safety, namely:
•
the Licensed Building Practitioners
(LBP) scheme, and
•
the errant behaviour of some Building
Consent Authorities (BCAs) in establishing their own registers which fail to
recognise CPEng
The
Registration Authority (RA) provides the Council with excellent and meaningful
statistics about the Chartered Professional Engineers (CPEng) register enabling
the Council to have a good understanding of the profile of the now 2,500+
CPEngs. The RA also updates the Council each meeting with details of any
complaints made against CPEngs once the RA’s investigation and disciplinary
procedures are complete.
In
the year under review, although there were a record number of complaints to the
RA, and an increased number of removals from the register, there were no appeals
to the Council against RA decisions.
The
Council’s main concerns have been for public safety, particularly in regard to
the design and construction of complex building structures. A secondary and
related interest has been to ensure the role of CPEng remains an effective and
enduring quality mark of current professional engineering competence, as
intended by the Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act 2002.
It
is pleasing to report the recently announced changes to the LBP scheme have
addressed most of the Council’s previous concerns. Some issues still need
resolving, in particular the separate “registers” (or lists) of “approved
engineers” operated by a few errant BCAs.
The
Council has worked with the RA in the production of a booklet (“Engineering
Edge” now in its 4th
edition) explaining the roles of all engineering professionals with a particular
emphasis on CPEng. Council remains determined to ensure all promotion of the
CPEng mark is clear and unambiguous.
The
Council’s operational costs were, once again, well below budget, largely as a
consequence of the absence of appeals. It is Council’s intention to continue
incurring overall modest net losses until the reserves are lowered to a more
moderate level.
2.
STATUTORY FUNCTIONS
The
statutory functions of CPEC are prescribed in the Chartered Professional
Engineers of New Zealand Act 2002. These are summarised in the following table
together with the activity, if any, during the year associated with their
discharge.
Statutory
Function - Activity during the year
Section
45(a) - Review and approve proposed rules containing CPEng standards - No new
rules introduced
Section
45(b) - Hear appeals from decisions of the Registration Authority - No appeals
received
Section
45(c) - Review and report to the Minister on the performance and exercise of the
respective functions and powers of:
•
Registration Authority (s53) - 2007
Report – June 2008 - 2008 Report – September 2009
•
CPEC (s54) - 2008 Report – September
2008
3.
COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP and MEETINGS
During
the year four new members were appointed to CPEC replacing four whose terms of
appointment had expired. One member resigned due to a conflict of interest.
Current
Council members:
Name
Position
Date of Appointment Date Appointed to
Graham Shaw
Chairperson
8 October 2008
7 October 2011
Peter Smith (Nominated by ACENZ)
Deputy Chairperson
18 May 2003
22 May 2010
Andrew Hazelton
18 May 2003
7 October 2010
Vivian Kloosterman (Nominated by IPENZ)
18 May 2003
7 October 2010
Sharyn Westlake (Nominated by IPENZ)
25 August 2006
24 August 2009
Hazel Armstrong (Consumer Representative)
8 October 2008
7 October 2011
Roland Frost (Nominated by IPENZ)
8 October 2008
7 October 2011
Those
whose membership of the Council terminated during the year:
Name
Position
Date of Termination Reason
Stephen Reindler
Chairperson
7 October 2008 End of Term
Kemp Broughton
7 October 2008 End of Term
Steven Gentry
7 October 2008 End of Term
Helen Walch
7 October 2008 End of Term
Elana Trout
6 June 2009
Resigned
During
this year the Council held four formal meetings in Wellington on the following
dates:
Meeting
# 25 - 3rd
of September 2008
Meeting
# 26 - 13th
of November 2008
Meeting
# 27 - 5th
of March 2009
Meeting
# 28 - 4th
of June 2009
Representatives
from the Registration Authority (which is the Institution of Professional
Engineers New Zealand Inc - IPENZ), including the Chief Executive, and the
Registrar, attended each of the Council’s meetings. Representatives from the
Department of Building and Housing (DBH) also attended all meetings.
4.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
Commentary
is provided on the following matters of Council business:
-
Monitoring of Registration Authority’s Performance
-
Promotion of CPEng – “Engineering Edge”
-
Clarification of Council Functions
-
Relationship with the Department of Building and Housing
-
The Licensed Building Practitioners Regime
-
Errant Building Consent Authorities
-
Complaints and Appeals
-
Review of CPEng Rules & Regulations
-
Financial Performance
4.1
Monitoring of Registration Authority Performance
IPENZ,
as the Registration Authority (RA), continues to be a regular attendee at
Council meetings reporting fully, both verbally and in writing. This ongoing
dialogue continues an effective working relationship between the two parties.
The
RA uses this forum to report in detail on CPEng registration statistics and this
in turn gives the Council an understanding of the overall operation and
acceptance of CPEng in New Zealand. The Council has devised a standard template
the RA reports against at each meeting. Topics covered include:
a)
Promotion of CPEng brand – Consumer Recognition
b)
Details of CPEng Registrations
c)
Distribution of CPEngs by IPENZ Branch (and off-shore)
d)
Breakdown of CPEng Registrants by Gender
e)
Breakdown of CPEng Registrants by Age
f)
Details of CPEng Assessment Applications Processing
g)
Breakdown of CPEng Applications by Practice Fields
h)
Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement (TTMRA) Applications
i)
Indication of Likely Appeals on Registration Decisions
j)
Reasons Applications Declined
k)
Complaints and Disciplinary Actions
l)
Other General Matters
The
Council continues to work with IPENZ to ensure the two new registers introduced
in 2007 for engineering technicians and engineering technologists are clearly
understood by all concerned and to monitor how they are working in practice with
the CPEng Register.
4.2
Promotion of CPEng – “Engineering Edge”
The
Council remains determined to see the promotion of CPEng as a statutorily
backed, quality mark of current competence, as described in the Act, occurring.
The Council is strongly supportive of the on-going measures undertaken by IPENZ
to this end.
The
Council believes more promotion is required for CPEng to achieve clear
recognition and wide acceptance, particularly from a consumer perspective.
Considerable care is required with any promotion to ensure CPEng is clearly
recognised, and properly established in New Zealand.
In
the year under review the Council worked with IPENZ and the RA to produce a
fourth edition of the “Engineering Edge” booklet. This publication provides
a guide to the wider engineering profession and its credential framework thus
assisting purchasers of engineering services in their choice of “the right
engineer for the job”. This latest edition has expanded the explanation of the
role of engineering technicians and engineering technologists.
The
Council continues to believe there is an on-going and significant role for the
DBH in assisting with the promotion of the CPEng mark, in particular by the
incorporation of Chartered Professional Engineers in appropriate pieces of
legislation where public health and safety is paramount.
4.3
Clarification of Council Functions
The
Council strongly believes, based on legal advice, that its functions are narrow
and essentially (apart from its reporting responsibilities to the Minister) that
of a reactive appellant body. This is the cause of some frustration to the
Council when it sees CPEng not receiving the appropriate recognition as the only
statutory mark of engineering quality. To this end the Council has proposed,
through DBH, that its functions be extended to include: “To uphold the purpose
of the Act” – that being “ … to establish the title of chartered
professional engineer as a mark of quality...”.
The
Council is willing to take a more proactive role if that is the political will
and is given the statutory authority to do so.
4.4
Relationship with the Department of Building and Housing (DBH)
The
Council’s relationship with DBH plummeted to a new low during the year but
probably finished on a new high, and it is on this positive note that the
Council wishes to build. The issues causing angst were:
•
Lack of responsiveness from DBH
•
A relationship based largely on
administrative process, and
•
DBH having a view that the Council’s
functions were greater than the Council considered them to be.
By
year end the Council was satisfied that the first two issues had been dealt with
and were now behind it. The last issue is in the hands of DBH and Government.
The
Council has deferred finalising its Memorandum of Understanding with DBH (which
it had been waiting over two years for DBH to respond to) and its Accountability
Agreement, pending resolution of the above issues, there being no point in
renewing existing agreements which had previously failed to deliver satisfactory
outcomes for either party.
4.5
Errant Building Consent Authorities
Together
with the CEOs’ of IPENZ and ACENZ, the Council’s Chairman wrote to the new
Minister of Building and Construction in March 2009 to express the collective
groups serious concerns over the practice of some Building Consent Authorities
requiring chartered professional engineers to be on local lists before producer
statements would be accepted from them. The group subsequently met with the
Minister in May 2009 to discuss this and the broader issue of regulation of
engineering work under the Building Act 2002.
4.6
The Licensed Building Practitioners Regime
The
Council has expressed concern for a number of years that the Licensed Building
Practitioners (LBP) regime has the potential to reduce public safety in respect
of the design and construction of buildings and structures. These concerns
were laid out fully in the 2006-07 Annual Report. It is pleasing to report that
most of the main issues Council raised back then have been addressed by DBH.
Many
of the potential public health and safety issues are being addressed with the
proposed introduction of Restricted Building Work. The contentious concept of
Design Leads and Site Leads has gone and is replaced with Design 3 and Site 3
Licenses. Council is pleased that Chartered Professional Engineers are now
“deemed” to hold both Design 3 and Site 3 licences.
The
Council is aware the LBP scheme has undergone a review for the new government
and Minister. Council still feels greater consideration needs to be given to
public safety where the construction or engineering works are complex and good
design and construction monitoring is critical.
4.7
Complaints and Appeals
The
Council continues to audit the details of each and every complaint the RA has
received, and dealt with, after the relevant file has been closed and the appeal
period has expired. Over the year under review all closed complaints were
reviewed by Council. None of them led to an appeal. Council discussed some
aspects of the processes used by the RA in these detailed reviews.
Some
complaints relate to commercial matters and are thus not a breach of the Code of
Ethics. Others evolve into a satisfactory mediation. Other complaints are over
trivial issues and are considered “insufficiently grave to warrant further
pursuit” by the Chair of the relevant Investigating Committee in IPENZ.
The
Council continues to maintain a close interest in these matters and likes to see
all complaints against Chartered Professional Engineers resolved in a timely and
equitable manner. During the year the Council did not receive any Appeals.
4.8 Review of CPEng
Rules & Regulations
The
RA suggested to Council that, as a decade has passed since the Chartered
Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act was first mooted and drafted, it is
time for both the Council and the RA to conduct a review of the CPEng Rules and
Regulations. To this end a sub-committee of Council members and IPENZ staff has
been set up.
As
noted earlier in this report, the Council sees its statutory functions as being
quite specific and narrowly defined, effectively making it just a reactive
appeal body. The additional function “to uphold the purpose of the Act”
would provide the Council with the statutory authority to more actively promote
and support CPEng as the only quality mark for engineers in New Zealand.
4.9
Financial performance
The
enclosed financial statements show a net operating deficit of $7,440 against a
budgeted deficit of $48,700.
Income
for the year was close to budget. Expenditure was well under budget mainly
because of the lack of appeals. Fewer than anticipated appeals led to lower
appeal costs, lower Council meeting costs, lower travel costs, and lower legal
fees than budgeted.
Appeal
costs remain extremely difficult to budget hence the Council’s desire to
retain a healthy Net Assets position, albeit at a somewhat lower level than the
present one. A figure of $100,000 has been decided on.
5.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - For the Year Ended 30
June 2009
See
Appendix
Graham
Shaw
Chairman
Peter
Smith
Deputy Chairman
Date:
20 October 2009
Appendix
FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS - For the Year Ended 30 June 2009
(Unaudited
Summary - extracted from full Financial Statements Audited by PKF Martin Jarvie
on behalf of the Auditor General - 14 October 2009)
Statement
of Financial Performance for the Year Ended 30 June 2009
