On 30 June 2024, the terms of all but one board member of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria came to a conclusion with the intent that a new board would be appointed from 1 July 2024 to continue the work of leading the ARBV in its role as registering and renewing registration of professionals, certifying architectural teaching institutions and responding to questions on behaviour of architects, with the intent of maintaining the high standards of architectural service that Victorian consumers have grown accustomed to. As at this moment the appointment of the new board is yet to be formalised and so the ARBV is without a functioning board with a quorum. While the Registrar and staff are no doubt capable of continuing the day to day tasks of the ARBV, this is not an ideal situation and not how the Architects Act envisaged the Board should operate. The Institute has made representation to the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) requesting that the new appointments be progressed as a matter of urgency, knowing that an advertisement process for new board members did take place back in May and that a number of architects are known to have made application for the minimum three architect seats on the Board.
The ARBV, together with the Architects Registration Board of New South Wales recently published a document late last financial year entitled a ‘Deep Dive into Systemic Risks in the Australian Architecture Sector’ https://www.arbv.vic.gov.au/deep-dive-report-systemic-risks-architecture-sector which follows on from a similar document issued in December 2022. While the earlier document was based on desktop research guided by the two boards, this year’s documents used key industry focus groups from across the sector, including architects, industry bodies, clients, developers, builders, building surveyors, insurers, academics, government agencies and other regulatory bodies to consider key areas of the initial research. The themes identified and explored in the’ Deep Dive’ are: the client-architect relationships and agreements; design and construct (D&C) procurement; compliance with the National Construction Code; and disruptive change. It is recommended that all members take the opportunity to review this document as the ARBV not only identifies and explores these issues but also encourages our profession to better understand the risks and to address them.
Indeed the ARBV website has a number of other reference and guideline documents that are designed to assist architects in their understanding of the law and the regulations it governs, as well as professional conduct incumbent upon architects in this state as written in the Architects Act 1991 and the Architects Regulations 2015. The latter regulations are deemed to sunset 10 years after the day of making, on 28 April 2025 and will soon be updated by DTP with the guidance of the new ARBV board.
Amongst the array of guidelines available on the ARBV website is one I would like to draw your attention to: ‘The provision of architectural services by approved companies or partnerships with unregistered employees’, ie. employees who are not registered architects. Refer https://www.arbv.vic.gov.au/arbv-architect-guidelines#supervision-of-unregistered-employees. I would imagine the majority of architectural practices would employ graduates of architecture and other allied professionals who are not registered with the ARBV. The requirement of the legislation is that every project undertaken by an architectural practice has the supporting expertise of an architect and that an architect director or architect partner is accountable for the provision of architectural services. On the face of it, this is probably how most practices operate, but ARBV has provided some examples which alert the profession to the degree of care which must be undertaken to ensure services offered are fully architectural and not in breach of the Act. The following are some paraphrased examples to illustrate the point, and I refer you to the guideline for a more comprehensive discussion:
- A bid is placed for a project where senior, but non-registered members of the bid team are described by their position (eg. Senior Associate, Project Director), have their architectural degrees stated as well as their extensive experience. A client body may assume from the bid documents, the academic qualifications and experience levels to infer that these staff members are architects. This would be a breach of section 4 of the Act.
- An architect leads a large project team, most of whom are unregistered. The architect meets with the senior members of the team who then brief the junior members. Under the regulations this does not constitute supervision of unregistered employees.
- A site experienced, but non-registered member of staff assesses a builder’s progress claim. This is not permissible under the regulations. The work of assessing a progress payment claim submitted by a builder is work that is required to be carried out by an architect or alternatively supervised by an architect.
Practices should ensure that their office protocols recognise and observe Sections 8D, 4 and 7 of the Act
to ensure that consumers are receiving architectural services as defined by the ARBV. Practices should also encourage their graduates, whether young or experienced, to work towards and to become registered. Not only will this most clearly satisfy the requirements of the Act, it will also raise the skill level and further enhance the reputation of our profession.
David Wagner FRAIA
President of the Victorian Chapter
