Why Dismantling Independent Architectural Regulation (ARBV) Puts the Public at Risk
The proposal to fold the Architects Registration Board of Victoria (ARBV) into a generic business and professions regulator has been framed as tidy “machinery of government”. In reality, it goes to the heart of why we regulate architects at all – and what happens to ordinary people when that regulation fails. [1][2]
The ARBV was never created to make life comfortable for architects. It exists
to protect the community interest and instil confidence in the regulation,
integrity and delivery of architectural services in Victoria – in other words,
to make sure that only suitably qualified, competent and accountable people can
call themselves architects, and that there is an independent board able to step
in when standards slip. Parliament accepted a hard truth: when buildings fail,
the people who suffer most are not the professionals but the occupants,
neighbours and communities who trusted the system to keep them safe.[3][1]
What’s actually changing?
- Stronger CPD powers – targeted continuing professional development when systemic risks appear or after findings of unsatisfactory conduct, responding directly to work on systemic risks in the architecture sector.[1][3]
- Clearer suspension powers – immediate suspension when an architect refuses reasonable information requests without excuse, a basic tool in any high‑stakes regulatory regime.[3]
- More transparent Registers and a stronger Code – clearer information on the public Register and firmer wording in the Code around ethics, coordination, sustainability and communication, all aimed at improving consumer protection and accountability.[1][3]
These are steps in the right direction; they show the regulatory detail is capable of evolving.
But the structural change – dissolving a dedicated, profession‑specific board into a large, multi‑occupational regulator (a renamed Business Licensing Authority covering many trades and professions) – pulls in the opposite direction. It risks:
- Diluting architecture‑specific expertise and oversight when decisions are made about complaints, investigations and standards.[4][1]
- Treating design decisions with profound life‑safety and long‑term performance implications as just another file in a very large in‑tray.[5]
- Encouraging governments to see architectural regulation as an administrative line‑item rather than a public‑interest safeguard.[1]
How this shows up on real projects
When serious design questions arise, the default response is often not to interrogate the adequacy of the professional advice, but to push more invasive tests and investigations into the building contract. Time, cost and risk are shifted to builders and owners via variations and provisional sums, even when independent reviews have raised significant questions about the original design approach. In that environment:
- Design risk quietly migrates down the supply chain.
- Documentation quality erodes because there is no clear, independent line back to those who first shaped the design.[5]
- Consumers inherit the consequences in remediation bills, lost asset value and, at the extreme, unsafe buildings.[7][6]
A strong, specialist regulator is one of the few structural checks on that
drift. The ARBV’s regulatory strategy explicitly commits to proactive, risk‑based
supervision, investigation of complaints, disciplinary action where necessary,
and education to address systemic issues – all aimed at protecting the public
and maintaining confidence in the profession. When that specialist focus is
diluted, short‑term commercial imperatives tend to win more often.[3][5][1]
The ethical purpose of boards like the ARBV
- Protect the public – by setting minimum standards for competence, education and ongoing learning, and by being able to sanction or de‑register when necessary.[3][1]
- Maintain trust in the title “architect” – so the public can reasonably assume that someone using that title meets a higher threshold of expertise and accountability than unregulated building designers.[9][3]
- Hold the line on professional ethics – in a commercial environment that will always reward speed and cost‑cutting over long‑term performance and safety.[1][3]
That third point is where the ethical dimension bites. Buildings last decades,
and people who will live in them in 20 or 30 years have no voice in today’s fee
negotiations, procurement models or regulator mergers. Independent statutory
boards exist, in part, to stand in for those future users and say: some
shortcuts will not be tolerated; some standards are non‑negotiable.[3][1]
Once you roll that responsibility into a large, generic regulator, three things
tend to happen (and other jurisdictions’ building failures bear this
out):
- Specialist knowledge is lost or pushed to the margins.[10][5]
- Professional ethics are reduced to generic conduct rules rather than nuanced standards tied to design risk.[1][3]
- Systemic design issues compete for attention with a long list of unrelated regulatory tasks, weakening the focus on buildings as a distinct public‑safety challenge.[8][5]
A better direction: assembling the built‑environment professions
In my RIS response, I supported the targeted regulatory improvements but argued they do not go far enough to address deeper structural problems in how we regulate the built environment. Fragmentation across multiple bodies – with architects, building practitioners, engineers and others overseen separately – has long been identified as a source of duplication, gaps and confusion for consumers.[10][5]
Instead of dissolving specialist boards, we should be assembling the
professions that shape our cities into a coherent, public‑facing system, while
retaining clear specialist oversight. That could look like:
- A Victorian Built and Environmental Design Chamber– with distinct sections for Architects, Landscape Architects, Spatial Planners, Engineers and Building Designers (with clearly defined support roles), building on existing statutory registration models rather than replacing them.[10]
- Shared infrastructure – a unified public register, consistent CPD standards, clear “responsible professional” designations on project documents and permits, and transparent disciplinary outcomes to make accountability visible to consumers and regulators alike.[3][1]
- Consequential legislative changes – including statutory recognition for currently under‑regulated disciplines like spatial planning and landscape architecture, so planning schemes, landscape intent and architectural delivery are better aligned.[10]
- Clearer boundaries for technical roles – restricting independent authority of drafting and technical roles on complex or high‑risk building types, while fully valuing their skills in support functions, in line with national moves to strengthen design‑practitioner accountability.[11][10]
This kind of model would reduce duplication and confusion for consumers without pretending all professions are interchangeable, and it would retain and strengthen specialist oversight instead of dissolving it.[5][10]
We should also be sharing data from failures such as combustible cladding,
structural defects and fire events, so each state is not doomed to repeat
avoidable mistakes. Retain state‑based specialist regulators who understand
local conditions, markets and building stock, while aligning core principles of
competence and accountability.[6][7][10][3]
Holding the line
The debate about the ARBV is more than an argument about which agency’s letterhead appears on a registration certificate. It asks whether we still believe that certain responsibilities – like designing the spaces where people live, heal, learn and work – demand specialist knowledge, higher ethical obligations and independent scrutiny.[2][1]
If we treat architectural regulation as an administrative line‑item to be
merged, trimmed or outsourced, we should not be surprised when the built
environment mirrors that attitude. A society that accepts minimal safeguards
will eventually live in buildings that embody that minimum.[7][5]
For those of us working in and around the building industry, this is a moment
to assemble rather than scatter: to insist on strong, independent, profession‑specific
regulation; to support reforms that genuinely protect consumers; and to refuse
narratives that equate “efficiency” with the quiet erosion of public
safeguards. The standard we defend today is the one future generations will
inherit – and judge us by.
By Architect Marina Kozul
Citations
- Industry bodies voice concern over future plans for Victoria’s Architects Registration Board – ArchitectureAU (overview of merger proposal and concerns).[12]
- ARBV Regulatory Strategy / Statement of Regulatory Approach – Victorian Government (purpose, community protection, regulatory tools).[3]
- Architects Registration Board of Victoria – overview of role and functions (public description of ARBV’s purpose and activities).[4]
- ARBV annual‑report and “Our regulatory approach” material (risk‑based supervision, complaints, investigations, disciplinary work).[1]
- Victorian architects alarmed over potential to abolish Architects Registration Board of Victoria – The Fifth Estate (column on proposal and risks to public protection).[2]
- The Grenfell Inquiry and Combustible Cladding in Australia – analysis of cladding failures and regulatory lessons.[13]
- Building quality fiasco: the fallout rumbles into dangerous zones as governments fail to govern – The Fifth Estate (on defects, weak oversight and fragmentation).[5]
- Only a small fraction of buildings with flammable cladding have been fixed – The Conversation (impacts on owners and safety).[6]
- The fallout: construction faults, failures and flammable materials – Emjay Insurance Brokers (industry perspective on defects and risk).[7]
- The Case to Retain the Architects Registration Board of Victoria – The Red and Black Architect (arguments for protected title and profession‑specific regulation).[8]
- ACA Response to Victorian Framework for Reform – Association of Consulting Architects (on fragmentation, accountability and the need for integrated reform).[9]
- Building reform – ACT Government (example of integrated, competency‑based approaches to regulating the building sector).[10]
Comments
Post a Comment