ASSOCIATIONS
Industry falls silent due
to builders’ break
The South African Institute of Architects (SAIA) expresses
its concern at the unfortunate timing of the call for public
comment on the Competition Amendment Bill.
By SAIA
T
4
APRIL 2018
RESIDENTIAL // COMMERCIAL // INDUSTRIAL
he Competition Amendment Bill,
made by the Minister of Economic
Development, Ebrahim Patel, stated
a 60-day period for industry comments –
but the period was smack in the middle of
the industry’s annual vacation.
“The 60-day period allowed for
comment, from date of Notice #1345 on
1 December 2017 to the closing date on
29 January coincides with the period
recognised in the built environment
professions as the ‘builders’ break’,”
laments Obert Chakarisa, chief executive
officer of SAIA.
“During the period of rest, much
attention of practicing professionals and
their employees is focused on matters of
practice during the busiest period of the
year, requiring all available resources,”
Chakarisa adds.
The timing of the release of the draft bill
during the builders’ break simply means
that a large constituency that are affected
by the bill are excluded from submitting
their comments. The one option that is left
is to raise such comments when the bill is
debated in the Parliamentary Portfolio
Committee, which may result in delays of
finally getting the bill promulgated.
“Depending on the nature of the
comments, the bill may have to be sent
back for re-drafting to accommodate vital
comments from industry experts,”
he explains.
Maryke Cronje, president of SAIA,
expresses her view, “SAIA believes that
the proposed bill also takes little
cognisance of the key elements of the
architectural profession.”
The time for comment unfortunately came when builders were on their annual break.
These elements include:
Recognised competencies as set out in the
Architectural Professions Act (Act 44 of 2000)
These recognised competencies relate to
the Identification of Work (IDOW) which
enables people of specific professional
qualifications to perform a specific level
and complexity of scope. This is in the
interest of protecting the public in the built
environment. This IDOW will inevitably
result in ‘concentration’ as referred to in the
proposed bill.
However, the solution does not lie in
preventing concentration – in these cases,
the concentration of suitably qualified
professionals to execute the appropriate
work is both relevant and beneficial. The
solution is to enable previously
disadvantaged individuals access to these
professional qualifications through
education, mentoring and experience.
Recommended tariff of fees (scale)
SAIA laments the fact that the annual
revisions to the gazetted fee scales have
been placed on hold for many years – or
‘price-fixing’ in broad terms. However, the
absence of these recommended tariffs has
in fact negatively contributed to ‘predatory
pricing by dominant companies’ and ‘price
discrimination’. The gazetted fee scales
in fact do provide ‘relevant cost
benchmarking’.
The detrimental effect of not having a
gazetted and recommended fee scale has
led to selling services at an excessively low
price, with the often-related knock-on
effect of less value for money in the
services rendered.