Complaints and disciplinary processes Rupert Grayston Deputy Chief Executive October 2007

Code of Ethics Mandatory to all members 3 cardinal principles 9 tenets Guidance notes on how to interpret and apply

Complaints history 85,000 members (incl. 25,000 students) No mandatory registration system for engineers Only 20 or so complaints per year Only 1-2 cases proceed to a hearing

Handling complaints against members Will consider complaints of improper conduct Will not consider cases of: –Contractual or legal matters –Fee disputes –Financial restitution or compensation Require complaints in writing; onus on complainant to obtain evidence Public guidance on web site >About Us >Member Discipline and Complaints

Disciplinary Regulations New regulations drafted for approval by Council & National Congress in Nov 2007 New Operating Procedures drafted for approval by Chief Executive in Nov/Dec 2007 Changes: –Contemporary governance principles, format & terminology –Numerous process flaws addressed Reflects PSC requirements, HREOC best practice model & Victoria Supreme Court case Molyneux v. VCAT & Anor

Outline of disciplinary process 1.Receive complaint; notify member 2.Assess adequacy of complaint details 3.Investigate and report 4.Dismiss case or appoint panel of members 5.Panel hearing 6.Dismiss complaint or apply sanctions 7.Valid appeals heard by panel of members

Old roles & responsibilities Staff assess validity of complaint Convenor (member of Council) appoints investigator (member) Convenor appoints hearing panels (members) and appeal panels (members) Panels determine sanctions and awarding of costs

New roles & responsibilities Staff assess validity of complaint Chief Executive appoints trained investigator Commissioner (member appointed by Council) appoints hearing panel (members) and appeal panel (members) Panels determine sanctions and awarding of costs

Improvements in new regulations 1.Investigation phase can be skipped on prima-facie cases 2.More options to establish the full facts 3.Ability to investigate without formal complaint 4.Paid & trained investigators to improve investigation & report writing standards 5.May counsel a member for poor practice 6.Remove requirement for non-member on panel 7.Discontinue standing pool of panelists in each state

Discussion points What do others think about: 1.Public expectations and perceptions? 2.Trained investigators vs technical experts? 3.Recruiting members for hearing panels? 4.Requiring a non-member on a hearing panel? 5.Counselling members for poor practice? 6.Appeal processes?

Thank you