|
|||||
| Media Release Actions addressing Scarry's concerns The Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) has acted openly, and responsibly to address concerns raised by the open letter by John Scarry. Scarry contends that both inadequate building designs are being performed, and that methods of construction are sometimes so poor that real building performance will fall short of design. The effect is that there may be buildings that will start to structurally fail in a lower magnitude seismic event than prescribed in the standards that were in place at the times that buildings were designed and built. Review group formed Upon receipt of the letter IPENZ responded by forming a practice review group of experts to review the allegations, seek and hear submissions, and then formulate recommendations that can be implemented by IPENZ or others. This group has met several times, and is progressing according to the
timetable set. At the time we received the Scarry letter we were a voluntary professional
body who could only act in two ways. We could try to persuade those involved
with building regulation to adopt better processes and standards, or we
could respond to an allegation In the last several years we have received no such complaint in respect to the type of matters that the open letter raised. Our reasons for acting immediately are that we see ourselves as having
a leadership role in identifying and promoting good practice amongst the
engineering profession, and because there was a major CPEng enable us to do more With the enactment of the Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act 2002 and changes we made to our Institution Rules in December 2002 we will be able to do more. The Rule changes allow us to investigate complaints against Members brought on competence as well as ethical grounds. The Act establishes us as the Registration Authority to decide who to register as a Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng). We will be carefully assessing the competence of every structural engineer who applies. They will be required to produce comprehensive documentation demonstrating their competence, and including referees statements from competent practitioners. They may also be required to produce work samples. The practice review presently underway may suggest refinement of the competence assessment process, and we would act on any such recommendations said Dr Cleland. The problems we still face in trying to look after the interests of
the wider public are that until regulators in the building industry require
that only registered persons are allowed to perform vital structural The announcement by Government in its Building Act discussion paper
released on 12 March that it favours a mandatory regulation regime is
encouraging. That will add a vital link in the chain that will Leaving aside our actions as Registration Authority for CPEng which
commence this year, if there are specific buildings out there that on
inspection are found to be faulty, and this can be proven to be due to
shortcomings of an IPENZ Member we would investigate and discipline the
Member concerned.
|
|||||
![]() |