• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

Working Towards a Comprehensive Policy Framework for Managing Contaminated Land in New Zealand: Report on Submissions

Executive summary

1 Introduction

2 Overview of submissions

3 Key elements and work priorities

4 National environmental standards

5 Roles and responsibilities

6 Guidance

7 Liability

8 Accreditation

9 Capability

10 National information

11 Additional research areas

12 Additional opportunities

13 Workshop overview

Appendix A: Index of submitters

Abbreviations

References

8 Accreditation

Although most submitters supported an accreditation scheme in principle, over half didn’t consider it a necessary component of a policy framework. Many felt it was necessary to improve the consistency and quality of investigations, reports and decision-making.

When asked how an accreditation system could be administered, a variety of options were suggested. The most common suggestion was to have the system administered by an accreditation body, such as the Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand.

Accreditation as a necessary component

Thirty-two submitters (53%) responded to this point. Figure 7 shows how submitters responded.

Over half (17) considered that an accreditation system is not a necessary component of a contaminated land policy framework. Most of these submitters considered accreditation ideal and reasonably successful in other countries, but did not consider it to be a priority or an essential policy component. A number also foresaw various disadvantages, including:

• reducing the already scarce number of practitioners

• reliance on appropriate training being available

• a long period of transition as practitioners prove their credentials

• significant costs associated with implementing and operating the scheme.

Others recommended alternatives to accreditation, including:

• providing review expertise from a central body rather than using external consultants

• requiring formal peer review of all investigation reports

• maintaining an informal register of appropriately experienced consultants.

Twelve submitters supported the accreditation of practitioners. Some suggested that accreditation best focused on those assessing sites against standards, and diffuse and point sources of contamination. Others suggested accreditation be extended to council officers.

A number of submitters also commented on accredited auditor schemes. One supported such a scheme, but two considered it to be inappropriate, citing the negative effects of auditor schemes in Australia.

Table 17: Assessment of whether an accreditation system is necessary, by submitter ID

Additional benefits and administration

Benefits of accreditation

Nine (15%) submitters commented on the benefits of an accreditation system. The most common benefit cited was improving the consistency of investigations and reports by consultants and decision-making by regulators. Many also considered that accreditation would improve the quality of investigations, reports and decision-making by:

• enhancing the skill level of practitioners

• providing greater confidence in technical reports

• reducing the frequency of reassessment.

Other benefits suggested included:

• increasing the likelihood of consistent site assessment standards being applied

• increasing developers’ confidence that they are using appropriately qualified and skilled consultants.

Table 18: Assessments of what additional benefits an accreditation scheme would bring, by submitter ID

Administering an accreditation system

Eight submitters suggested a variety of options for administering an accreditation system.

The most commonly suggested option was to have the system administered by an accreditation body such as the Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ). The Institute itself submitted that it would be open to this possibility.

Table 19: Suggestions for administering an accreditation system, by submitter ID

[ Previous | Next ]