Background and overview

A. Overview

B. Introduction

1. As regulator of the architecture profession in Victoria, the Architects Registration Board of Victoria (ARBV) is alert to the state of compliance culture within the architecture sector.
2. Compliance culture relates to the attitudes and behaviour of individuals and firms towards adherence to the law, as well as compliance with professional and ethical standards. A sector that is characterised by a weak compliance culture can lead to widespread breaches of the regulatory framework. Non-compliance can cause harm.
3. For the architecture sector, harm may be experienced by clients and users of architectural services in the form of:
   • poor client-architect relationships;
   • designs that do not meet clients’ needs or have adverse environmental or social impacts; and
   • building defects that create safety hazards or financial losses from remedial work or project delays.
4. These harms could undermine trust in architects and erode confidence in the profession.
5. The importance of regulatory oversight of sectoral culture to prevent harm was emphasised by Commissioner Hayne in the context of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (Financial Services Royal Commission). Commissioner Hayne noted that, historically, regulators have only given limited overt attention to the link between culture and conduct. Instead, instances of non-compliance are generally dealt with when they come to light without adequate consideration of systemic issues that may underlie them.[1]
6. In contrast, by promoting a strong compliance culture, the ARBV hopes to ensure alignment between the important values of professionalism, integrity and ethical conduct that underpin the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct (Code of Professional Conduct) with the attitudes and conduct of architects and architectural firms.
7. This report will form the foundation for future ARBV initiatives to strengthen compliance culture within the architecture sector. This chapter provides context for the report.

C. Regulatory context

8. The regulatory context for the provision of architectural services is an important starting point in understanding what compliance means in practice for architects and architectural firms, as well the ARBV’s role to strengthen compliance culture in the architecture sector.

The regulatory framework applicable to architects underpins the achievement of important outcomes

9. In Victoria, architects, architectural firms and the provision of architectural services are regulated under:
   • the Architects Act 1991 (Vic) (Act);
   • the Architects Regulations 2015 (Vic) (Regulations); and
   • and the Code of Professional Conduct, which is a schedule to the Regulations.
10. Collectively, the Act and Regulations are referred to in this report as the “regulatory framework”.
11. The primary objective of the regulatory framework is to protect the public interest by ensuring that buildings are designed by architects who are appropriately qualified and experienced. This protection is achieved through two main types of compliance obligations, which are imposed under the regulatory framework and summarised below:

• Professional standards: Architects are required to achieve the standards of professional conduct set out in the regulatory framework, particularly the Code of Professional Conduct.
• Protection of title: Only persons who have been registered or firms who have been approved by the ARBV can represent themselves to the public as an architect or approved company or partnership providing architectural services.

12. Non-compliance with these compliance obligations can have serious consequences. Apart from the sanctions that may apply under the regulatory framework, a building design that fails to meet applicable regulatory requirements could lead to building defects. There may also be safety, financial, legal and reputational consequences for clients and users of architectural services, the architecture profession, other participants in the construction sector, as well as the broader community.

Architects are held to high standards regarding their practice and behaviour under the regulatory framework to minimise the risk of harm

13. In order to minimise the potential for harm from sub-standard architectural practice and services, architects and architectural firms are held to high standards under the regulatory framework.
14. This is achieved through extensive educational and professional requirements, such as those contained in the National Standard of Competency for Architects (NSCA), which must be satisfied in order to become registered as an architect.
    
15. Once registered, architects must continue to meet standards of practice by complying with the Code of Professional Conduct and “all applicable laws”, which includes the National Construction Code (NCC).
16. Architects are also required to maintain their skills and knowledge through compliance with Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements.[2]
17. These requirements help to provide clients, users of architectural services and the public with confidence in architects, architectural firms and the provision of architectural services and protect them from harm.

D. Prior research

Prior research indicates that there may be segments of the profession that could benefit from guidance about compliance

18. The catalyst for this report was the emergence of evidence indicating that there is room for improvement regarding the attitude and approach of at least some architects and architectural firms towards their compliance obligations under the regulatory framework.
19. Research undertaken by the ARBV and the NSW ARB about systemic risks in the Australian architecture sector – reflected in Systemic Risks in the Australian Architecture Sector (2022) and Deep Dive into Systemic Risks in the Architecture Sector (2024) – indicated that there may be segments of the profession that could benefit from guidance to ensure compliance in the various practical contexts in which architectural services are provided.

Prior research also indicates that compliance culture across the broader construction sector could be strengthened

20. Work undertaken by other bodies shows that compliance culture among architects, but also within the broader construction sector, could be strengthened.
21. The 2018 Building Confidence Report referred to suggestions that “a large number of practitioners operating across the industry either lack competence, do not properly understand the NCC and/or have never had proper training on its implementation”.[3] Of relevance to architects, the report noted evidence of the poor quality of design documentation.[4]
22. A more recent research report issued by Cladding Safety Victoria (CSV) in 2024 about Compliance in Building Design referred to widespread misapplication of regulatory requirements in relation to external wall cladding by a range of professionals involved in the design and certification of buildings, including but not limited to architects.[5]
23. The CSV’s 2024 research report on Non-cladding Defects on Class 2 Buildings noted a significant number of non-cladding related building defects arising from poor architectural design, defective construction due to poor workmanship by trades under the supervision of builders, or maintenance issues.[6]

A focus on compliance culture, which goes to the root causes of non-compliance, is necessary to drive lasting change

24. Clearly, there are limits to the prior research that has already been undertaken. These limits include a narrow evidence base linked to specific contexts in which non-compliance has been assessed and a lack of thorough exploration of the broader circumstances and causes of non-compliance. Importantly, prior research has not yet fully considered nor documented the contribution of other sectoral participants and procurement contexts to non-compliance by architects and architectural firms.
25. Despite these limits, this report is based on the premise that compliance issues do exist within the architecture profession. This premise is supported by the complaints and cases about architects’ unprofessional conduct that are routinely investigated by the ARBV. Notably, there may also be other cases that are never brought to the ARBV’s attention.
26. In this light, the ARBV considers that a focus on compliance culture is essential. This approach, which addresses the root causes of non-compliance, is necessary to drive lasting change. It involves a greater focus on understanding and addressing the underlying attitudes, values, and behaviours that shape how architects and architectural firms approach compliance with their regulatory obligations, rather than simply enforcing the regulatory framework when non-compliance arises.

E. Purpose of this report

27. As mentioned above, this report will form the foundation for future ARBV initiatives to strengthen compliance culture within the architecture sector.
28. The specific objectives are to:
    • clarify what compliance culture is and why a strong compliance culture is important;
    • identify overarching duties owed by architects that underpin a strong compliance culture;
    • improve understanding of the current compliance culture within the Victorian architecture sector;
    • provide practical guidance for architects to strengthen compliance culture;
    • identify regulatory tools that can be used to enhance compliance culture; and
    • highlight the tangible actions that can be taken by architects, the ARBV and other relevant sectoral participants and regulatory bodies to strengthen compliance culture in the architecture sector and the broader construction sector.

F. Approach

29. This report is based in part on a desktop analysis of relevant reports, academic literature, complaints and non-compliance data, and case law.
30. The desktop analysis has been supplemented with the following fieldwork:
    • a focus group with key participants from the architecture and broader construction sectors (see Attachment A for a list of the focus group participants); and
    • a survey of architects registered by the ARBV.
31. The questions that were discussed by focus group participants and the survey questions are contained in Attachment B.
32. The work reflected in this report has been guided by a Working Group comprising a mix of representatives from the ARBV Board and ARBV staff to ensure consideration of a broad range of perspectives.

G. Structure of this report

33. The subsequent chapters of this report cover the following issues:
    • Chapter 2: What is compliance culture and why is it important? – This chapter defines compliance culture and explains the importance and benefits of a strong compliance culture.
    • Chapter 3: Architects’ status as professionals – This chapter outlines architects’ legal obligations and ethical responsibilities, with a particular focus on how they intersect with architects’ professional status. The chapter explains that this status implies a commitment to compliance.
    • Chapter 4: Architects’ overarching duties – This chapter identifies the overarching duties that reflect the core values and responsibilities of members of the architecture profession. The chapter includes case studies to illustrate how the duties could be breached by small and large architectural firms and describes initiatives that could be taken to avoid non-compliance.
    • Chapter 5: Evaluation of compliance culture in Victoria – This chapter outlines a framework to evaluate compliance culture in the architecture sector. It uses that framework and available information to evaluate the current compliance culture within the Victorian architecture sector.
    • Chapter 6: Strategies for architects to strengthen compliance culture – This chapter provides guidance about how sole practitioners and small and large architectural firms can establish a strong compliance culture.
    • Chapter 7: Regulatory toolkit to enhance compliance culture – This chapter discusses regulatory tools that can be used to enhance compliance culture.
    • Chapter 8: Conclusion – This chapter offers conclusions about the high-level findings from this report. It suggests that action is needed by all participants in the architecture sector and in the broader construction sector to strengthen compliance culture in order to improve outcomes in the built environment.