Daniel:
Hello, everyone. It's a bit aggressive, isn't it? Sorry, guys. Normally I speak a bit louder because then microphones are turned down a lot. But I'll grab your attention. My name is Daniel Ross and I'm a proud Wurundjeri man. And tonight, I'm here to deliver a Welcome to Country for you all. A welcome isn't just a speech, not just verbatim.
And when I spoke earlier about the event, they go, “Do you want to stand behind the lectern?” And, well, this is architecture. How many of you guys have tried to make a building inviting by leaving a door closed? And that's the way I see a lectern. Apart from being too colonial. It's a barrier. How do you invite people into your home, if you've got a barrier in front of you?
And I want to, the other thing that…well, I've got a total of about 10 minutes, but look, we should be out by the time the doors open in the morning, I promise. Bunjil is our creator. Bunjil created everything we see from the stars in the sky to the roots of the trees in the ground. Bunjil taught us how to listen, how to care.
But it's 2023. What does that mean? How does something at the beginning of time have relevance to what we do today? And I reflected on that this year when I was nervous. We have a season called Poorneet. You see, it closely aligns with Spring. We've got six seasons and this year the wattle bloomed a month early. And I was nervous because last year when the wattle bloomed early, we lost Uncle Jack and Uncle Archie.
But there's a flipside to Poorneet, you'll see, and it's a lot like the young fellas in the room. It's fresh new beginnings. Yam Daisies are coming to flower, tadpoles in ponds, exciting new opportunities everywhere we look. In other words, when we could take food, and if we get away from the city lights, and I'm partly to blame for that because I'm an electrician by trade. We can make out an emu on the horizon in the Milky Way. And as the emu stands up on the horizon, we knew we could take the egg of the emu. But as we traverse around the sun, the emu lays down. And that tells us the father's going to nest and we wouldn't take the egg anymore. 235 years ago though, everything would change.
Is it for better? I'm undecided, but we're here, collectively. Places like the MCG was once a place of song, dance, ceremony, decimated for a sporting field. The Birrarung, known as the Yarra River, was the lifeline through country, the vein that provided life, resource. It was shelter, food and abundance. It once ran crystal clear and blue, and it flowed all the way through The Heads to what we now know as Port Phillip Bay. We were forced off what was home to places like Bolin Bolin Billabong. And then the squatters said, “These fellows are getting too fat”, and they pushed us off there again. And that's when they established Coranderrk known as Healesville today. Coranderrk was one of the most profitable Aboriginal missions in the country. Yet we weren't allowed to get a pay check, you see, until we learnt to read and write English.
So, for those in the room that speak a language other than English, I implore you to teach your children, your grandchildren, because losing language is an absolute travesty to the fabric and identity of who we all are. At Coranderrk, Uncle Billibellary, was our known Ngurungaeta contact. Our head man. He walked from Coranderrk to what we now know is Spring Street to negotiate our first treaty. And at that signing, he took two little fellas with him. Now, this is a feat that I want to see again, but we’ll see, I'll set a challenge today. Uncle Simon Wonga and Uncle William Barak were at that signing. He negotiated 12 axes, a few bags of rice and a couple of blankets. The crown ripped it up, you see. Us natives weren’t worth that much. But our stories and practices have been passed down by milestones like that, where our senior leaders guided our young and involved them in all decision making.
And when I say, “I give you a challenge”, I reference the William Barak building. And if you visit The Shrine and look towards Carlton, you can see Uncle Barak's face standing over 30 stories tall, incorporated into the facade of a building. It means Uncle Barak still overlooks home today. He also gave my Great-Grandmother the tribal name Bullum Bullum. It means white butterfly. The old fellas, they’ve got a way of knowing. I hope I get old one day. I turned 21 last week, I promise. This year they were everywhere. Little white butterflies. I don't know if it's because I am getting older or there were just that many, but I sat and watched them in awe, being gentle, caring and nurturing. You see, Nan was instrumental in opening the first health service for Aboriginal people right here in the State of Victoria.
1967 we had a referendum and we voted “yes”, unanimously, in fact. It was over 90% that Aboriginal people were now human. We weren't any longer a part of the Flora and Fauna Act. Then, there’s my story. I told you I turned 21 last week. My first day of school I wanted to share stories that I'd learned from Aunties and Uncles and things like Narrm Narrm, which is Port Phillip Bay, sea levels have risen 128 meters. We've got Dreamtime stories about that. Waa the crow; the protector. He brought us fire. We've got Mindi; the snake. We've got Dandan, the parrot. And I take great pride in that because I like to talk like the parrot. But my first day of school was horrible. You see, I was told I wasn’t Aboriginal because I was white. I went home broken. I never wanted to go back to that place they called school. But… my grandfather sat me down and he took me right back to Bunjil’s law at the very beginning and how we listen and how we care for each other and for country. And it gave me that strength to push on and go back to that place that I called school.
And then I hit my teenage years. And then I had that same story from my grandfather, where I had to stand up and be a man. And a part of that story was, I couldn't court other indigenous boys and girls. “Why not?” I asked, and he had to explain to me that we weren't only forced off to Coranderrk, but we were separated again and sent to places like Cummeragunja up on the Murray, Lake Tyres in East Gippsland and as far north as the Maloga Mission.
So, we didn't know where our family members were. But we're lucky enough for an institution that we're in right now. They've managed to keep diaries of some of the old fellas that documented our history, our travel, and we were able to come back together and identify the three family groups that make up Wurundjeri as we know it today, so I'm very humbled by that. But it's something that was denied to First Nations throughout Australia, throughout the globe, in fact, during colonization. But I've mentioned Bunjil’s laws twice now, and I'd like to close on that. You see, Bunjil has taught us how to listen, how to care, and I want to share that with you all and get you to hold that at the forefront in the way we undertake moving forward collectively as one. How we listen to each other, how we care to one another, and how we care for Country and the way we do things.
Because knowing that if we get to the laws set from inception right, we know country is going to care for us and provide for future generations. I'd like to welcome you all to my ancestor’s home. My home. But before I do, I wish to pay respects to my elders, past and present, but pause and pay my respects to all of you and acknowledge your elders past and present also.
“Wominjeka Wurundjeri Balluk yearmenn koondee bik” in the Woi wurrung language, I just said, “Welcome to the traditional lands of the Wurundjeri people. Our traditional lands go West of the Werribee River, North to the Great Divide, East to Mount Baw Baw and South to Mordialloc Creek. And this is the part I need your help with. If you can repeat after me, it’d be fantastic. “Noon gudgin”. I just taught you how to say thank you. Noon gudgin.
Stuart:
Yes, and Noon gudgin, thank you indeed Daniel for that very generous Welcome to Country. Good evening, everybody. In a minute will introduce our panel speakers for this evening. But first of all, briefly introduce myself. I'm Stuart Harrison. I am the president of the board, another Board of The Open House Melbourne, and I'm a practising activist and I've been a registered architect since the year 2000, director of Harrison and White, and teach at University of Melbourne. I'd also like to extend welcomes to everybody, including dignitaries. I notice former premier Ted Baillieu here this evening and the Board of course, the Architects Registration Board. So, many of you will be familiar with the ARBV, obviously, and tonight is both a celebration and a survey past, present and future, as to the ARBV and its role in helping us through the significant changes we have seen over the last hundred years and some of the significant changes we will see that are already happening into the next hundred years.
The ARBV, of course, oversees formal architect registration in this State. Formal registration is there to inspire public trust in professional architects and the services they provide. And of course, we celebrate 100 years, although Professor Julie Willis might correct us slightly on the date of that tonight. I also would like to, on a, I guess, on a design advocacy note, just to stress the importance of organisations like the Registration Board in maintaining quality in the built environment as we all try to work to a better designed City and State, and all of us in advocating for good design and trying to make the message clear to government and beyond, that good design, of course, saves money over the long term and is critically important. Tonight's event is also a relatively brief event. We will be out of here. It's my job to make sure we are concluded by 6:00pm so I won't dilly dally in introducing our first speaker.
So, Professor Julie Willis will be known to many of you and she will talk about the history of registration. Julie is of course Professor of Architecture and Dean at the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning at the University of Melbourne, and she'll be talking to the history. Let's welcome Professor Willis. Actually, I think I'm going to introduce all of our speakers up to the stage. Sorry, Julie, if you will take a seat. Yes, you're quite right.
We might bring all of them up. Dariel De Souza is here as well, and Amy Muir I think is here as well. So come up everybody, and we'll welcome everybody. And we'll all sit up here together. And one by one will come up and we'll have short presentations from each of the three. And then our panel discussion.
Professor Willis.
Julie:
Thanks very much Stuart. So, it feels a bit like a Christmas Carol and we’ll be the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future. But my job is to talk about the past in terms of registration. Of course, it's the 2023 is the centenary of the first registrants on the register. The act itself, as you can see in the image there, was passed late in 1922. But the first formal consideration of registration of architects in Australia was more than 35 years earlier, when both the Victorian Institute of Architects and the South Australian Institute of Architects began discussing the matter in their respective jurisdictions in 1887.
The motivations beyond the recent success in registration for dentists and pharmacists in Victoria, doctors have been 1862, were to lift. They wanted to lift the standards expected of architects, including the formalisation of architectural education and the requirement of competent standards to use the title architect that would lead to the public good. That is consumer protections, particularly related to health and the eradication of disease through good design.
Opponents, unsurprisingly, indicated that just strengthening the Building Act would do this and that these proposed provisions would create a closed shop for architects. Effectively, the same arguments that have played out again and again over the history of registration. From 1890 when the first bill was drafted, there were multiple attempts to see registration for architects achieved in Victoria, including a failed reading of the bill in Parliament 1892 and several approaches by the Institute to the Minister of Public Works.
In 1918, a private member's bill was introduced in Victoria by A. A Billson, whose son, Edward Fielder Billson, was the first graduate from the Diploma of Architecture at the University of Melbourne in 1915. So quite a personal crusade for Billson. He would introduce the bill, his bill a further two times without success. But the First World War had significantly disrupted the pipeline of article pupils in architecture, which had prompted a significant reestablishment or establishment, or reestablishment of formal qualifications in architecture in universities and technical colleges right across Australia.
And in parallel there was a renewed momentum for architectural registration. Now, at this point in time, anybody could call themselves an architect, and it was quite common for engineers, surveyors and architects to move between the titles back and forth, and they often upgraded those titles for themselves from time to time. This was a very real problem as to how to distinguish what an architect could do and how they could present themselves to the public as properly qualified professionals.
Despite Billson’s lack of success, eventually the Minister for Public Works, the honourable Frank Clark, introduced a registration bill in 1920 and in fact they went in parallel, Billson’s bill and Clark's bill in the Houses of Parliament at the same time. They were known as bill number one and bill number two, and eventually bill number two, the Minister for Public Works’ sponsored bill was passed into law in 1922. The complications of two bills with the same premise meant the debate in Victoria was particularly protracted. So, in shorter time frames, firstly New South Wales and then Western Australia, late in 1921, passed legislation giving statutory regulation of architects. Victoria had only managed to protect the title of registered architect and put it out of step with New South Wales, Western Australia, Queensland in 1928 and then Tasmania in 1930.
It took until 1939 for the Act in Victoria to be amended to protect the term architect. It took ‘til 1940 for South Australia to finally get its own registration act. The requirements outlined in the 1922 Act were agnostic as to any allegiances or professional memberships and encompassed a wide range of possible educational qualification in architecture. Rather like the move from private forms of architectural education, articles, to institutionally based certification, the set of rules and requirements for registration as set out in the Act, allowed practitioners from a wide range of backgrounds to become registered architects.
And while the registration of architects was often criticized for the protections it gave the profession, paradoxically, its independence from the profession’s direct control, and I’ll note that in a minute, meant it opened architecture up to those who may have otherwise been excluded by a non-government body. It’s worth noting, though, the first registrar, William Campbell, was also the honorary secretary of the Royal Victorian Institute of Architects and its chair of the board E. A. Bates was a past president of the RVIA. However, in the first tranche of registered architects in Victoria, of the 33 registered, just 12 were members of the Institute. Registrants included a significant number of regional architects from Mildura to Bairnsdale, and a woman architect, Vera Lane, the second female graduate of the University of Melbourne Diploma of Architecture. Within the first year of the registration, nearly 500 architects joined that registration role.
Numbers remained static nearly for the next two decades, dipping to near 400 as the Great Depression took its toll. And in 1939, the Act was amended to protect architect. The numbers then rose significantly from then. So, numbers of registered architects have waxed and waned as economic conditions have contracted the building industry or not. But it has set from its inception, it has set the standards for qualification and competence of an architect and considered a valuable distinction by practitioners and the profession as a whole, to inspire public trust in professional architects and the services they offer. It's very clear that those changes that were made 100 years ago to protect the term architect,t has set the tone and built the confidence of what it is to be an architect and the services that they then offer. So, this is a very important milestone. Thank you very much.
Stuart:
Thank you, Professor Julie Willis, for that wonderful summary of how we got here. Next, I want to introduce Dariel De Souza, who's our legal mind this evening. Dariel De Souza is a multi-disciplinary professional with degrees in law, engineering and business, and is director of DART Legal and Consulting. And Dariel is going to be talking through a fascinating piece of research commissioned by the ARBV last year onto the systemic risks in the architecture sector.
So, to talk us through the present. Let's welcome Dariel.
I stole Dariel's notes. And here's the clicker.
Dariel:
Thank you. No trouble. Now. Hello, everyone. You’ll, I'm talking about the present. You'll be relieved to hear that I'm not going to step you through the Architects Act as it exists today. But I am going to talk about the research piece that Stuart has just mentioned, which was commissioned last year. So, over the 100 years since the establishment of the ARBV, the context for the regulatory framework overseen by the ARBV has changed dramatically and you've heard from Julie how the regulatory framework has changed in response to that external change.
But the changing context has also changed the way in which the ARBV has discharged its regulatory functions. And I'll be speaking a bit about that today. So, in particular, the ARBV has had to evolve to ensure that it acts in a way that keeps pace with and is responsive to external change, and that enables it to continue to be relevant and discharge its core regulatory function, which is to ensure that architects comply with their professional standards, obligations and this in turn helps to protect the public interest and instil confidence in the delivery of architectural services. Now, moving to the present, as Stuart has mentioned in 2022, the ARBV and the New South Wales ARB and the CEO is happily with us today, commissioned a piece of research which really sought to get a better understanding of the current context for the provision of architectural services by architects today. And the results of that research piece can be found on both ARBs websites. The focus of this research project was at the systemic level, really trying to get a sense of systemic risks that apply across the sector, which face architects presently. Now the main purpose of this exercise was to assist the ARBV and the New South Wales ARB to determine how they could support architects to navigate the current context.
And the research revealed that there are a number of systemic risks that currently face architects, which I'll step you through in this slide. Oh, I've gone the wrong way. Sorry. So, first of all, D&C procurement or design and construct procurement, as many of you will know, over the past 20 years, the D&C procurement model has become the dominant procurement approach within the Australian construction industry, particularly for large scale residential and non-residential building projects.
The model offers clients time and cost certainty and the benefit of centralised responsibility for project delivery. While the contractor assumes responsibility for project delivery for both the design and construct components, typically, responsibility and risk are transferred downstream to subcontractors, including architects along the contract chain. D&C contracts are typically bespoke and often contain unfair contractual terms and an unfair allocation of risk. Involving at times, the imposition of significant responsibility on architects, but leaving architects with limited control over project delivery. Now, these types of unfair contractual terms also expose architects to risk, and the evidence presented in the research report indicates that this may limit the availability or at least make more expensive professional indemnity insurance for architects. Now, all of these issues that arise in the D&C contract context can cause a cascade of systemic risks, which I'll touch on now.
So, the second main category of systemic risk identified in in the ARBVs report relates to building defects and compliance with the NCC or the National Construction Code. Defects and failures in newly constructed high multi-storey residential buildings have been in the spotlight of late, and various studies have been undertaken to determine whether there’s an upward trend in building defects and also to determine the root causes of these defects.
Now, although the studies are not definitive, there is some evidence to indicate the building defects arise when there are time and cost pressures as well as unreasonable client demands. These characteristics feature in the D&C procurement context. The question has also arisen as to whether NCC compliance or lack thereof is relevant in the context of these building defects and evidence cited in the ARBV’s report indicates that at least some architects may find compliance with the NCC challenging. It's a complex, lengthy and heavily text based regulatory instrument that can be hard to digest for at least some architects.
The third core category of systemic risks relate to client architect relationships. Now, it's hard to definitively characterise a client architect relationship. Obviously, each relationship will vary depending upon the type of procurement model, the type and the size of the client, as well as the nature and the scale of the project for which architecture services are being sought.
Notwithstanding these differences, communication is core to a successful client architect relationship in all contexts, particularly communication in relation to the client's requirements, the duration of the project, the architect's fees and the overall construction costs. Now, as the ARBs’ report notes, the ability of an architect to communicate directly with their client may be compromised in a D&C context because of the complex, contractual and practical arrangements that may exist. But the report also notes that poor communication is also not uncommon outside the D&C context. In addition, client architect agreements, which really are important to establish the key parameters of a well-functioning client architect relationship and keep the relationship on an even keel, may not be in place, may not be compliant with the code of professional conduct or may be poorly understood.
The fourth category of systemic risk identified in the report relates to disruptive forces, which are fundamentally changing the way in which the construction sector operates, as well as the risk profile of projects. Disruptive change comes in the form of increasing and intensifying climate change impacts on buildings, greater demand for sustainable design, more government initiatives linked to the transition to net zero that are applicable to buildings and technological developments such as automation, digitalization and artificial intelligence that are also relevant to building and construction projects.
Now, failure to respond to these disruptive forces will leave architects vulnerable, particularly in light of the intensely competitive market for architectural services, which is outlined in the ARBs’ report. But failure to respond to these disruptive forces could also mean that architects fall short of their professional standards obligations.
The final category of systemic risks that I want to touch on relates to education and training. And the report prepared by the ARBs notes that the adequacy of education and training for architects may not be adequate, particularly given the risks that arise in the D&C context and the disruptive forces that I've just touched on. Now, at least some of these risks are not new, but it's their confluence and likely intensification over time that may pose challenges for architects, and it may also compromise their ability to discharge their professional standards obligations. The report notes the critical role for regulation and the ARBV and the New South Wales ARB, for that matter, to play in delivering positive outcomes for architects, clients and users of architectural services by helping architects navigate through this maze of systemic risks. And so in summary, talking about the present, the current context is undoubtedly challenging for architects, but regulation can be used to help architects overcome these challenges. Thank you.
Stuart:
Thank you. Thank you, Dariel, for that wonderful piece of research which I would recommend, you can download it easily and go through. Our next speaker and we're running broadly on time is that is the good news. Our next speaker is Amy Muir. Amy will also be well known to many of you as an architect and director of Muir a Melbourne based architecture practice established in 2016 and also sits on the board of Open House Melbourne with myself and of course is a former president of the Victorian chapter of the Institute of Architects.
Let's welcome Amy Muir.
Amy:
Thanks Stuart. Okay, clicker. All right. The future is what I've been asked to speak to today. There might be a little bit of backtracking but will essentially be speaking about the future. So, in 1991 the Architects Act was updated and that was 30 years, 32 years ago. In 1991, a total of 491 Australians graduating, graduated from architecture school and 143 of these were female and 356 were male.
So, you can sort of see the percentages there is 28 and 71 and the points percentage is always important to hang on to. 2021, we haven't got any figures from 2022, but 2021 we have 1,385 students graduating from architecture school. So those numbers actually went up dramatically. We can see here they haven’t, but they did go up dramatically and they ended up being 38% females, which is a much better outlook.
Back to 1991, we had 3,021 registered architects. 81 of those are unknown, so they're not accounted for. But females, we had 240 females and 8.2% were figures at that, but 2,700 were male and now we jump to 2023. We've got 5,444, which then equates to a 1,816 females versus 3,608. So, this is a much better outlook and one that we obviously would like to celebrate. Going back to obviously 2021 our, the percentages are far more in line with 50/50 at university versus when we get to registration where it starts to drop off. But this is obviously a much better picture than in 1991. So, there are also this statistic is a little bit loose, but we know that there are six registered architects who identify as indigenous Australians. So, in 1991, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, but interestingly enough, here we are in 2023 trying to support The Voice to Parliament which is pending. And then in 1991 we had our first Victorian Premier, Joan Kirner, and then in 2023 we have our second Victoria Premier, Jacinta Allan, who's just come into the role. Sorry that these slides are jumping around a bit, but I'll give you the message.
If you're born in 1991, according to Wikipedia, you are most likely to be a sportsperson who kicks balls at 43% and you're least likely to be a Mercedes Benz dealer at 2%. Now, I know we can all question Wikipedia, but then according to Wikipedia, you need to be born in 1970 to be recognized as the youngest of note architect in Australia at 2% with the most likely occupation being a politician, if you born in 1970 at 36%, followed by a TV personality 9%. So, in 1991 we had the AIA gold medallist and that was Donald Rupert Bailey. And in 2023 we're very, very excited to obviously announce that Kerstin Thompson or congratulate Kerstin Thompson, for being the gold medallist. The second gold medallist since 1960 who won it as a female in her own right. We've got lots of twos going on. And then in 1991, the Australian, Victorian Architecture Medal, which is the highest major medal in Victorian architecture awards, was given to the Carlton Baths and Community Centre by Peter Elliott. And then in 2023 it was given to the University of Melbourne student precinct, which was led by Lyons, but was a collaboration between six architecture practices. And this notion of co-design was very much embedded in that project and I think that that is an important thing to note. In 2022, across Victoria we have 113,625 Victorian building permits, which equates to I'm not going to say that number, but it's 47 billion, four, nine, six, etc. etc. Now that just equates to a very large amount of money and a very large amount of responsibility and a very large acknowledgment of legacy moving into the future.
So, with buildings burning, the 2019 Shergold Weir report signalled that change urgently needed to be made. And I think we all acknowledge that. 71% of the respondents to a code of novation, novation survey that was undertaken by the Institute of Architects in 2019. And the result sees that the Victorian results and 71% of the respondents believe that there was a negative impact on finish and durability, which starts to talk about some of the issues that we're raising tonight.
And then in a world where the standard contract has been sidelined, 67% of the respondents believed that contract negotiations impact negatively on their ability to deliver quality outcomes for the general public and the user. So, this is me now I'm going to have to remember. So, I think what we're talking about here is tighter and more stringent regulations can only assist to define more roles more clearly. And I think this is a very important role that obviously the ARBV plays and also obviously our acknowledgment of the Act this evening as well. The role of education, CPD, we obviously in Victoria, this is something that we are very keen to mandate. It's a must and in a world that has changed significantly and not much at all, as we've just noted, between ‘91 and 2023, but sustainable work practices are at the forefront and this is something that we all are very cognizant of and have to be aware of when we talk about contractual arrangements. More regulation requires an acknowledgment of responsibility and respect for contributing roles. More regulation requires cooperation, synergy and fairness through contractual arrangements and conditions. We can say no. But unfortunately there will always be someone who will say yes, and this is just the way the World works. So holistic policy and regulation will always be our friend. Government as client are the natural leaders in this field. And so, the notion of sharing risk, not shunning risk, is a very important part of how we manage moving forward.
So, let's work together. This is really important that we're ensuring that we have quality, safe and sustainable outcomes that defines our futures. State's Legacy. Thank you.
Stuart:
And hear us now up on the stage as we move into our discussion part of the evening. Thanks for those three wonderful presentations through past, present near, near history and future. And I want to delve into some of the themes of the talk tonight and touch base with all speakers on how they see, I guess, particularly this key question of regulatory stewardship, which is a sort of kind of beautiful way of seeing the role of a regulator.
So, the first question I'll probably run through all of you with this one, is “What does regulatory stewardship mean to you and how would you characterise the ARBV’s stewardship role?” Julie, I'll start with you.
Julie:
It's an important the Board’s role is really important in establishing the standards that are required for operation as an architect in the State and from that flows a whole lot of things. So, if you control that, you have reasonable faith that those practitioners will therefore produce good designs that are to code, that ensure and promote the health and well-being of the end users that they are designing for. And it has been since the outset. Those are the intentions of what the ARBV has been about, even in the earlier iterations, trying to get the legislation passed. They were all driving towards the same end and so we still have those conditions. The external conditions may change, but the fundamentals are still in place.
Stuart:
The key moment, I think, in your brief history was that once it became once the term architect became protected, that was a major obviously achievement. But of course it didn't require and still doesn't, that all buildings are delivered by architects.
Juile:
That's right. So, all it does is protect the title and that's the standard in Australia. It's not the same standard internationally where you can see there are instances where the protections actually mean that architects are required to sign off buildings of a certain value. But it's been remarkably effective as a straightforward way of managing this without being overly restrictive.
Stuart
So, it's part of its beauty has been its simplicity in effect.
Julie:
Yes.
Stuart:
Dariel, the same question to you. What's your take on this concept of regulatory stewardship in terms of the ARBV?
Dariel:
The well, the ordinary meaning of stewardship is to care for something. And so regulatory stewardship is essentially about making sure that all the aspects of a regulatory system are working well together and delivering the outcomes that they're designed to deliver. Now, in practical terms, regulatory stewardship involves taking a systemic view of the system rather than a narrow view that is limited by the strict parameters of a regulatory framework.
It involves being proactive in trying to anticipate change and risk. It involves collaboration with stakeholders across the entire system and it involves a certain degree of self-reflection and evaluation to ensure that you are continually responding to your external environment. And in my view, whether consciously or otherwise, the ARBV has taken the concept of regulatory stewardship very seriously, as is evident through their work on systemic risks.
They have this taken a systemic perspective of their regulatory functions. They have worked hard through the research and other work to try and proactively anticipate risk. They are in the process of engaging very broadly across the entire system, not just with architects, but developers, certifiers, government bodies, etc. to do a deep dive into these systemic risks. And they are also in the process of establishing a mechanism to evaluate and improve. And in my view, the ARBV is a good example of how to undertake regulatory stewardship in a very concrete and tangible way.
Stuart:
And should that regulatory stewardship tighten up, as Amy seems to be suggesting, around things that you've identified in terms of risks, you know in terms of external and change factors? So, in terms of D&C, for example, take one of those risks, should that be more regulated, how that's approached?
Dariel:
Well, in fact, the ARBV doesn't have power to dictate the method of procurement. All they can do is alert architects to risks that arise in the D&C context, particularly those risks that could compromise architects’ ability to discharge their professional standards obligations. And so, it's not necessarily tightening up around D&C, the D&C context because the ARBV doesn't have power to do so. But it's about supporting and encouraging compliance, notwithstanding the existence of these risks. And it, risk will change over time. I mean, D&C procurement is dominant now, alliancing was dominant previously, and there may be another model that becomes dominant in future. We just don't know. So, it's about remaining responsive to the external context to external change and making sure that the regulatory approach really keeps pace and ensures that the regulatory approach and the regulatory system as a whole, is fit for purpose.
Stuart:
You'd have to amend the act effectively if you wanted to regulate D&C specifically. Amy, coming to you. So, this same theme of regulatory stewardship, what's your take on that as a, as a sort.
Amy:
I guess just following on what we were talking about. Obviously the notion of tightening things up is about, you know, 32 years. How do we actually, you know, in terms of context shifts and changes, how is the wording of the Act and the framework of that Act? How is that assessed now in terms of where we sit? But yeah, it's not necessarily about procurement methods. It's not, you know can't regulate in those terms. But I think, you know, there's something I mean, when we talk about society in general. You know, we have mechanisms in place that manage the way that society operates. And in the ARBV in its existence is one of those mechanisms. And so therefore, it, it provides, you know, it provides framework for education in terms of this idea of, you know, students, graduates and then, you know, working within practice.
Stuart:
And when registered as well.
Amy:
Yeah. And becoming registered. So this, you know, this idea of elevation within the industry and within the profession, it, you know, it frames that as a, as a construct as well as obviously providing, you know, the framework for which we have to, you know, operate within. Which is, you know, fundamental to maintaining good quality outcomes.
Stuart:
And you made it clear that you thought CPD should be more required in Victoria, as sort of as it is in New South Wales. I'm registered in both States and it's far more clearly defined in the New South Wales context. Do you think Victoria paralleled New South Wales?
Amy:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So this is obviously, you know, in terms of the Act being updated, this would be something that would be a huge advantage obviously to Victoria to mandate it and so that it becomes, it becomes forefront. I mean it is, we do it, we undertake it, but it's not necessarily, you know, it's at this point in time within Victoria, it's not mandated.
Stuart:
And interestingly, those changes in New South Wales, around or around CPD, target particular areas such as First Nations, such as NCC compliance. One of those risks, and in fact, as someone who works has registered in New South Wales as well, I feel like I’m getting a lot more exposure to NCC compliance through my New South Wales registration because it's nominated as an area of CPD.
Want to come to the next question that we'll probably tackle tonight, which is a sort of broader one around the legacy of the ARBV over the 100 years that it has been regulating. Julie, how do you see the legacy of the Board?
Julie:
Well, it's really taking the architecture profession as it was this rag tag arrangements that were in some places quite, professional and others very, very loose and given it structure. And arguably the role of the Institute has also played a key role with that, the regularization of architectural education through higher education providers has also played a role. But registration has been a key plank for defining the profession and been a bedrock of how that then presents to the World.
So, it's been extraordinarily important. It has changed. We now know confidently what an architect is, we didn’t in 1923.
Stuart:
Yes, Dariel same with you. Where do you see legacy?
Dariel:
For me, the legacy relates to the ARBV’s approach. I think their main legacy is their demonstrated capacity to be agile, to be adaptable, to be flexible over time, which has helped to ensure that the organisation remains relevant, useful and in fact needed in the sector. We've seen through the work on systemic risks how the ARBV as an organisation is actively trying to assist architects to navigate the current context. But for the time that I've been involved with the ARBV, I've seen a distinct change in approach which demonstrates the agility, the responsiveness, etc. In particular, the ARBV has shifted from what was previously a largely reactive approach where there was, you know, sanctions or compliance action taken for non-compliance with the regulatory framework, to a much more proactive approach which focuses on predicting, pre-empting and trying to prevent non-compliance before it actually occurs.
And this means and this is a really positive outcome for the sector because it involves supporting, focusing on supporting and encouraging architects to comply, rather than waiting for non-compliance to occur. And you can see this shift in approach means that the regulatory framework is not used as a punishment or a tool to sanction, but rather a constructive and positive instrument to guide architects through what at the moment is a fairly challenging context. And I hope this sort of positive, constructive use of the regulatory framework continues to endure over time.
Stuart:
Dariel, just sort of follow on from that. In terms of other professions, are these are the same issues being worked through in the broader professional regulatory environment?
Dariel:
Well, you know, a key issue that arises in all professional regulation context is this issue of, of trust, professions are treated with a certain status in society; doctors, lawyers, engineers and architects. And they have this special status in society because they have expert knowledge and experience and they and this basically means that their clients have trust and confidence and they can influence their clients and this elevates their status in society. But in exchange for this elevated status, they promise to care for us to act in the public interest. And we've seen it through various inquiries and royal commissions, etc. failures of conduct and competence across a number of different professional regulatory frameworks and I believe that this emphasis on holding professionals to account for breaches of trust is equally relevant in relation to the regulation of architects. I believe that those obligations in the regulatory framework that go to the heart of that fiduciary relationship between an architect and their clients need to be strictly enforced because that's what provides them with that elevated status under the regulatory framework.
Stuart:
And thanks. And Amy, coming to you, the legacy of the ARBV?
Amy:
So, I think it's sort of touching on the fact that it does set up this structure within, you know, within the profession is a very important thing to sort of remember its role. And I think as it is, you know, acknowledging there's we have very significant issues that the industry is being faced with, and we have been for the last, you know, however many years now. But it is they're real and they need to be addressed. And I think that there is this you know, if we understand things from a holistic perspective, we're far better off if we understand them from that perspective. And I think that, you know, the construct of the ARBV allows us to do that and allows us to understand, you know, the mechanism by which we operate under and that, that as a way of communicating to clients, communicating to the public is a very important part of what the representation of the ARBV is.
Stuart:
No, agree. Now, before we thank everybody, we've got one more speaker this evening. Giorgio Marfella is the Chair of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria. So, let’s welcome Giorgio to the stage. And Giorgio, will close things out.
Giorgio:
Thank you, Stuart. I have a very simple job to do, which is fundamentally to thank the panel and to thank the audience who took time to come and celebrate 100 years and a bit of history. But most of all, it was very important to hear from a very different perspective the reason why we exist. And so we are really taken by this opportunity that was given to us to host you and listen from some others, why we exist and the importance of why we do that. So, on behalf of the Board, I would like to pass my gratitude to Julie, Dariel and Amy, who have given us the opportunity to reflect on our identity, the risks that we're facing, and the delicate role that we have also been moving towards the future. So, whilst we commit as the Board to take those challenges with us, we leave you a token of appreciation for your time. And I'd also take opportunity to thank everybody so far and to continue to join us. For those who have been able to accept our invitation to a private function which is at the Isabella Fraser Room not far from here. But we will ask you to swiftly leave this room and go to La Trobe Street, turn right and you'll be guided to the continuation of tonight's event.
So, thank you very much and thank you, Stuart, for handling and chairing this event so smoothly. So, thank you very much and we'll see you next time.
Stuart:
Thank you. Thanks Giorgio.
Updated