Giorgio Marfella 0:04
Welcome everybody. Good afternoon. My name is Giorgio Marfella and I'm the chair of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria. Before we begin, I'd like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land in which we are meeting. I'm in the land of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation, and I pay my respects to the elders past and present.
Now as you can see today for our ARBV webinar, we have quite a few guests, all very high profile I should add and the opportunity to introduce a report out of which is an output of a research project the ARBV has undertaken in the last year concerning the strengthening of compliance or compliance culture, particularly in architecture of course. And so I won't anticipate too much about that, but I think in a nutshell its an opportunity for us to reinforce the professionalism that architects provide in the building industry and the the hope that architects will continue, of course, to maintain those professional duties in the public interest. So I'll quickly go around the table and we have Theo Blanas, who's joining us from DPC from the Office of the State Building Surveyor. Then we have Paul Viney from the Association of Consulting Architects and Bronwyn Weir from Weir Consult and then Dariel De Souza, who has collaborated with the ARBV in the preparation of the report. Now, given that we have so many speakers, Dariel, I'll just turn over to you.
And as always, if you have any questions, feel free to put them on the side, on the Q&A function and we'll endeavour to respond in due course. Over to you Dariel.
Dariel De Sousa 1:54
Thanks so much, Giorgio. So just, uh, while my slides are getting put up, there they are. Um, I just want to share a couple of housekeeping, uh, rules with you. Uh, the first one is that the QR code that has just appeared on your screen is to answer your CPD questions.
So unlike previous webinars in series that we've run previously, the questions won't actually appear in the slides, but rather you'll need to access them via the QR code. I'll show this QR code again at the end of the webinar, so you can either choose to answer them during the course of the webinar or at the end at your leisure, but you will need to complete the webinar, uh, complete the questionnaire and submit your responses in order to qualify for formal CPD points. Um. The other thing I wanted to note is that this Uh webinar is actually part of a series of four that will run over the course of the next 12 months. So what we've got the privilege of having some very esteemed panellists to share their insights on the report with us. So we'll be prioritising their comments and we may not have time for Q&A at the end of the session, but certainly in the subsequent webinars that we'll be running later in the year and into next year, you will certainly have time to ask your questions. So the primary purpose of my introductory presentation is really to provide you with an overview about the ARBV's report on strengthening compliance culture in the architecture sector, and hopefully this presentation will help you navigate the report as well as some of the additional materials that the ARBV has prepared.
Now I thought it would be worthwhile just explaining a little bit about the impetus or the catalyst for the report. And the catalyst essentially comes from various sources, indicating that there is room for improvement regarding both the attitude and approach of at least some architects and architectural firms towards compliance with their obligations under the regulatory framework. So one of the sources of this evidence are reports prepared by the ARBV and the NSW ARB on systemic risks in the architecture sector, which were published in 2022 and 2024, and many of you will have attended the webinar, sharing the results of that research and you'll recall that one of the findings from that research is that there are likely to be segments of the profession that could benefit from guidance to ensure compliance in the various practical context in which professional services are provided by our architects. Now other sources of evidence include the Shergold Weir Building Confidence Report 2018, and we've got the privilege of having Bron with us to share her insights on this report with us, where the report talked of a large number of practitioners operating across the industry lacking competence, not properly understanding the NCC and never having had proper training on its implementation and of relevance to architects, there was reference to evidence of poor quality of design documentation. More recent reports come from CSV Cladding Safety Report Victoria on compliance
in building design and non cladding defects on Class 2 buildings, both issued in 2024 that talk about widespread misapplication of regulatory requirements, particularly in relation to external wall cladding, but also in other contexts.
Now there are limits to the research and the evidence that has already been presented and these limits are talked about in the ARBV’s report. But despite these limits, the ARBV’s report is based on the premise that client compliance issues do exist within the profession.
And this premise is supported by complaints and compliance issues that come across the ARBVS desk routinely, indicating that there may be instances of unprofessional conduct. And notably, the ARBV doesn't even see the full suite of instances that may arise.
So in light of this evidence, the ARBV considers that a focus on compliance culture is absolutely essential because this approach really addresses the root causes of non-compliance and is necessary to drive lasting change and avoid harm to clients, users and the profession more generally, now the importance of such approach, looking at sectoral culture, was really emphasised by Commissioner Hayne in the context of the Financial Services Royal Commission back in 2019, where he noted that historically regulators don't draw that linkage sufficiently between culture and misconduct and instead tend to focus on instances of non-compliance when they arise in a reactive fashion. This report that has been prepared by the ARBV will form the foundation of future initiatives that will be undertaken by the ARBV to strengthen and enhance compliance culture within the sector. Here are the key objectives of the report to clarify what compliance culture is and why a strong compliance culture is important to identify overarching duties that are owed by architects that underpin a strong compliance culture to improve understanding of the compliance culture within the Victorian architecture sector to provide practical guidance for architects to strengthen compliance culture, to identify regulatory tools that can be used by the ARBV and their co-regulators to enhance compliance culture and finally to highlight the tangible actions that can be taken by architects, the ARBV and other relevant sectoral participants and regulatory bodies to strengthen compliance culture, not with it, not just within the architecture profession, but more broadly across the construction sector. In terms of the approach that the ARBV adopted to prepare this report, it was in part based by a desktop analysis of academic research reports, case law and non compliance data and it was supplemented by a focus group with key participants from the architecture sector, including Paul Viney, who we're happy to have with us today and also a survey of architects registered by ARBV and we're very thankful to the more than 500 architects who chose to respond to that survey and and the richness of the response has really helped to support the the the findings in this report.
A working group comprising a mix of representatives from the ARBV Board as well as ARBV staff was assembled to ensure consideration of a broad range of perspectives in preparing the report, and the intention of the report is to ensure that it is relevant for all architects and practices regardless of size and scale. So you'll see the report contains discrete coverage of issues affecting sole practitioners and small firms on the one hand, as well as large firms on the other. Now, there are three key outputs from the ARBV's work. The first is the detailed report on strengthening compliance culture in the architecture sector, the 2nd is one page high level summary for those that are interested in the key takeaways from the report and the final one which is potentially the most relevant for the architects online today, which is a booklet containing practical guidance to help architects and architectural firms of all sizes to really strengthen their compliance culture. It includes case studies both to avoid breach as well as how breach of overarching duties might occur, but also the top ten strategies as to how all the types of firms can strengthen their own compliance culture. So in terms of what I'm going to be covering as a sort of preliminary discussion before we move to the panelists discussion is I'll be sharing with you some of the key concepts that underpin the ARBV's report, particularly compliance culture and compliance mindset. I'll be talking about architect status as professionals and how this is linked to a strong compliance culture. I'll be talking about architects overarching duties that sit above the detailed compliance obligations which architects must comply with. I'll be sharing insights from the ARBV's evaluation of compliance culture in Victoria at this point in time by identifying strategies for architects to strengthen their compliance culture and I'll be identifying regulatory tools that the ARBV and our co-regulators can employ to enhance compliance culture. So let's start with some key concepts.
The first, of course, is what is compliance culture? Well, compliance culture is the combination of the shared values, attitudes, and habits that guide people's behaviour, actions, decisions, and strategies in their everyday operations regarding their compliance obligations. And it begs the question, compliance with what? Under the Code of Professional Conduct, as you will all probably be aware, architects must comply with all applicable laws, and this clearly includes the Architects Act, the Architects regs, as well as the Code of Professional Conduct. But it also extends to the National Construction Code as well as laws that apply to the provision of architectural services, including planning laws, environmental laws, but also laws that apply to the provision of architectural services more generally, like competition laws, occupational health and safety laws, as well as superannuation and taxation laws.
Now, why does compliance culture matter? Well, a weak compliance culture can have devastating consequences. It can lead to poor client architect relationships. It can lead to designs that don't meet clients needs or have adverse social or environmental impacts. And in the worst case scenario can lead to defective and unsafe buildings. On the other hand, a strong compliance culture can reduce the risk of non-compliance and avoid regulatory sanction, but it can also enhance trust and confidence in the profession and it can set a positive example for others in the broader construction sector.
What does a compliance, a strong compliance culture look like in practice? Well, the foundation for a strong compliance culture is a shared understanding and agreement about why compliance as important is important, and it depends critically on the existence of a compliance mindset amongst members of a particular firm or practice, and we'll talk about what a compliance mindset looks like in in practice in a moment. In terms of how compliance culture can be strengthened, the spectrum of architecture, architects, compliance obligations have been rolled up in the report to 7 overarching.
Duties and by understanding and embracing these overarching duties, Architects can really lay a strong foundation for a really solid compliance culture.
So let's unpack those key concepts in a little bit more detail. So starting with the concept of culture, culture is the cumulation of values, attitudes, habits, assumptions, expectations and aspirations that shape everyday actions, decisions and strategies.
And compliance culture is a subset of culture that relates to how these aspects affect adherence to legal, regulatory and ethical obligations. Now, culture and compliance culture affect a person's mindset.
And a mindset influences how individuals interpret and respond to particular situations and contexts. A compliance mindset reflects an individual's internal commitment to understand their compliance obligations, to take actions and make decisions lawfully and within integrity and to generally do the right thing, even in the absence of active oversight. Now, compliance culture and compliance mindset are intrinsically linked. One enforces and reinforces the other.
So what are the elements of a compliance mindset? And it's important to take stock of these because a culture that cultivates a compliance mindset is more likely to produce compliant outcomes. So a compliance mindset.
Involves A commitment to learning about compliance requirements, being interested, being aware, being committed to understand what those obligations are. Secondly, to have a thorough understanding of your compliance obligations, noting that the spectrum of obligations to which Architects are subject are quite extensive.
The third is an acceptance of responsibility for compliance with those obligations. The 4th is a vigilant approach in daily tasks to ensuring that compliance with those obligations is achieved.
And finally, a commitment to a compliant pathway, notwithstanding the incentives and rewards that might exist that for doing otherwise.
Now, we can't talk about compliance culture within the Architecture sector without discussing architect status as professionals, because the two things are intrinsically linked. Architects compliance obligations stem from their status as professionals like doctors, like lawyers, like engineers and other professionals, Architects are skilled individuals who use their knowledge and expertise to provide very specialised services and in their capacity as professionals, Architects are entrusted with responsibility that affects a wide range of important societal values including safety, aesthetic, appeal, environmental sustainability, cultural heritage, social identity, economic efficiency and contribution to communities and public life.
And as explained in this part of the presentation, an architect's appreciation and acceptance of their role as a professional necessarily implies a commitment to compliance.
This slide summarises the defining attributes of a professional. So a professional's expertise can be characterised as a combination of specialised knowledge and practical skills which have been acquired through extensive education, training and experience.
This expertise goes beyond general knowledge and enables professionals to engage in complex problem solving and critical decision making at times in very challenging situations with potentially significant consequences.
Professionals apply their expertise in the service of others by addressing the needs and problems of their clients, communities or the public at large. As professionals, architects attain a position of responsibility in society as a result of the trust and
confidence that their clients and the public place in them as a result of this specialised knowledge and expertise and this position of responsibility could be exploited to advance architects own interest at the expense of those that they serve. So in exchange for this respected and responsible position
professionals are expected to act in the public interest by maintaining high professional standards and complying with their legal & ethical obligations. So, as you can appreciate from this slide, a professional mindset is consistent with and strongly aligned with a proactive and committed approach to compliant, and it's really important for architects to be cognisant of the key attributes of themselves as a professional and the implications of having professional status.
Now, as mentioned previously, underlying architect status as professionals is a set of overarching duties that are grounded in law and in ethics. The overarching duties derive from the social contract that exists between architects and their clients and the public more generally, because of the trust and confidence that society places in architects, given their professional status, legislation reinforces this social contract between professionals and their clients in the public by restricting entry to the profession to only qualified and experienced professionals in exchange for a commitment on the part of architects to uphold the professional standards which are reflected in the Code of Professional Conduct and the social contract and legislative framework is complemented by common law, which is developed by judges rather than under statute which elaborates the duties owed by architects to their clients. These overarching duties rise above the detailed compliance obligations that exist under statute and in the code and transcend firm sizes. They apply regardless of project types or procurement models, and they apply universally to all architects and go to the very heart of what it means to be a professional. So what are these overarching duties?
First of all, the duty of care, one that you'll be well familiar with. Architects must exercise reasonable care and diligence in the performance of their duties. Secondly, the duty of competence. Architects are required to maintain adequate knowledge, skills and training to perform their work to the relevant standard of care, including through ongoing CPD like this session.
Thirdly, the duty of honesty and integrity. Architects must act truthfully, transparently and ethically in all their professional dealings. Fourthly, a big one, a duty to comply with all applicable laws, including the Act, the regs, the code as well as the NCC and other laws that apply to the provision of architectural services. Fifthly, the duty of confidentiality. Architects must protect confidential information that is received from clients and other parties in the context of provision of architectural services and
only disclose that information if it's with consent or authorised under law. The duty to act impartially and avoid conflicts of interest. Architects must provide objective, independent advice and avoid situations where their own personal and financial interests could compromise their professional judgment.
And finally, Architects must maintain accurate and complete records of decisions, communications and project developments, and provide clear, timely and effective communication with clients, with contractors, with consultants, and with regulatory authorities to manage risk and maintain trust and the report as well as the guidance document includes case studies to illustrate how these duties may be discharged as well as how they might be breached. And the case studies apply to both small sole practitioners and small firms as well as larger firms. Now while these duties are overarching in the sense that they apply universally. There may be practical differences in the way they apply in relation to different stakeholders, particularly clients, the public and the profession, and we will unpack these nuances in subsequent webinars.
But just to give you a flavour of what I mean by this comment, for clients, architects need to act in the client's best interest. They need to be competent. They need to ensure compliance. In relation to their duties to the public they need to prioritise safety, health and well-being and make sure that the public are protected from harm. In relation to their duties to the profession, architects need to promote the values of fairness, transparency and accountability and contribute to the advancement of the profession.
And in in summary, architects must discharge their duties with contextual awareness. It's also important to note that the overarching duties apply differently at different levels. So at the individual level, the duties are personal obligations, for example to comply with applicable laws, to avoid conflicts of interest, to undertake ongoing CPD. At the firm level, the overarching duties need to be converted into policies, procedures and systems to ensure that those overarching duties are discharged.
At the project level, the duties need to be reflected in interactions with other project participants, for example, avoiding conflicts of interest and acting honestly and with integrity in relation to these interactions. And at the sectoral level, this could include the delivery of CPD to really enforce these overarching duties and voluntary industry codes that help to embed these overarching duties in practice. Now, why are we worried about compliance culture? Well, it all comes down to outcomes.
This diagram, which is in the one page summary as well as the guidance, summarizes why a strong compliance culture is really important. It reflects the ripple effect metaphor, which basically means that where an architect has a strong professional identity, really appreciates their status as a professional attendant with these responsibilities and this respected position in society. They're more likely to embrace their overarching duties and this in turn will help to embed a strong compliance culture and this has this ripple effect of positive outcomes, good client architect relationships, good design that meets client needs and avoids adverse impacts and good quality, safe built outcomes in practice.
Now, as is noted in the report, the ARBV has used the available information to undertake an evaluation of the compliance culture within the sector at the moment and while there are limitations to both the indicators that were used, as well as the data that was available, I'm going to share with you as some of the key insights that were based in part on compliance data as well as the focus group insights as well as the survey responses that were received for the more than 500 of you that responded. So here are some of the key insights.
The first one relates to the commitment to compliance, and the evidence indicates that architects are strongly committed to compliance, but the evidence indicates that this commitment could be undermined by project and practical realities.
In terms of the awareness of architects of their compliance obligations, the evidence indicated that they're generally aware of the Act and the Code, but they may be less aware of some of the detailed NCC compliance obligations, as well as the broader laws that might apply to the provision of architectural services and the point was made that some Architects may believe that primary responsibility for compliance rests elsewhere, or that compliance obligations are more confined. That is actually the case, particularly in the context of provision of partial services. In terms of how well architects understand their compliance obligations.
Again, the evidence indicates that understanding might be good in relation to the Code of Professional Conduct and might be fair in relation to NCC, but there may be pockets of the NCC that are not well understood, and there may be other laws that also aren't understood.
And also what we found is that while CPD is broadly valued by the profession, attendance at CPD sessions is actually patchy and attendance has and compliance with the the formal requirements has actually declined in the past couple of years.
In terms of capacity to comply, reference was made to tight timelines, unclear roles and responsibilities, and builder control of project decisions that can undermine architect's capacity to comply. In terms of architect's ability to maintain compliance over time reference was made to the challenges associated with regulatory complexity, particularly the NCC, as well as regulatory change. Having said that, it was generally noted that notwithstanding these challenges to comply, architects are widely seen as ethical and trustworthy, reflecting a very strong professional identity. However, at the project level, fear of conflict and lack of contractual power may prevent architects from reporting or resisting non-compliance in certain project and procurement context and at the sectoral level ongoing systemic issues across the entire sector may expose architects to disproportionate blame for non compliance and the reference was made to the point that architects have PI insurance and therefore they may have a target on their backs in the context of litigation that may arise in when things go wrong.
Now I'm just conscious of time, so I won't go through these strategies in great detail, but basically the guidance document that the ARBV has prepared includes the top ten strategies that sole practitioners and small firms can follow to really strengthen their compliance culture and here they are summarised. This is an excerpt from the guidance. Just very quickly, understand your unique culture, lead by example, practice self-discipline, even when you're under commercial or time pressure, stay informed, participate in CPD and and access regularly regulatory updates. Use simple compliance tools like checklists and templates that embed reference to compliance issues. Use workflows and project planning to make sure that you do address compliance issues in a proactive manner rather than waiting for compliance issues to arise. Seek external support when you need it.
Learn from your mistakes, don't let them recur, and document your work carefully. For large firms, it's important for leaders of the firm to set the tone at the top. Really champion the importance of compliance.
Actively foster a compliance culture, promoting pride in the profession and reinforcing the messages to why compliance is important to protect clients, etcetera from harm. Implement a tailored, bespoke compliance management system that really reflects your organisation. So making sure that policies, procedures and systems to ensure compliance are fit for purpose and apply across the entire organization. Engage with staff, remind them of their compliance obligations. Make sure that their roles and responsibilities for compliance are clear. Provide ongoing and training and education, or at least support them to attend training and education. Promote openness and transparency about compliance issues when they arrive. Establish A reporting mechanism so that compliance issues can be escalated and dealt with across the organization. Incentivise compliance by, for example, linking performance reviews with client compliant behaviour.
And commit to continuous improvements. So if you want more detail, I encourage you to go to the guidance document. And then very quickly, I've talked about what architects and firms can do to strengthen their compliance. And very briefly, I want to just talk about the regulatory tools that are available to the ARBV and other co- regulators to support and enhance compliance culture within the profession. Education in guidance, regulatory incentives for example, taking compliant culture into account when non compliance does occur.
Targeted enforcement really coming down hard on those that repeatedly fail to comply. Public censure, naming and shaming those that repeatedly fail to comply, and finally collaborating and coordinating with co-regulators across the building and construction construction sector and a mix of regulatory tools may be needed to drive meaningful change, and this mix may need to evolve over time, depending upon what's going on with the sector. And finally, once again, here's the CPD QR code for you to answer your questions, but some very brief key takeaways before I hand over to Giorgio and the panellists, first of all, a strong compliance culture is not optional in architectural practice. It is part and parcel of being a professional and it will help you navigate your complex and detailed compliance obligations and moreover as the report explains, there are significant benefits that can accrue from a compliant culture. Now a strong compliant culture can take significant effort and can, but it can deteriorate really quickly if neglected. So you need to continuously cultivate a strong compliance culture.
Finally, all participants in the construction sector need to collectively commit to compliance, but architects can lead by example. So I apologise for going through this very quickly, but I'm just conscious you've got an important discussion coming up with the panellists and I'm going to hand over to Giorgio and the panellists to continue the discussion. Thanks, Giorgio.
Giorgio Marfella 33:19
Thank you, Dariel.
So this was a very condensed outline of a report that is already quite voluminous and as you pointed out there is a there's a particular version that should assist architects also in applying and as we also tried to emphasize to make sure that there are different realms, different kinds of project, different kinds of firms where this culture can be implemented or reinforced where it already exists. So this takes me the opportunity to go around the table for some additional comments and without following any particular hierarchy I I would like to just ask maybe Bronwyn to make some comments on this initiatives and Bronwyn also kindly accepted to provide us a preface or some sort of forward. So Bronwyn, would you like to give us a bit of a perspective also from the broader challenges that the construction industry is facing in the last few years.
Bronwyn Weir 34:25
Sure. Thanks, Giorgio. I'd like to commend the ARBV on this report. It is a great body of information and the thing that occurred to me in reviewing the document and preparing the forward was that this is not something, this is something that other professions can use. It's a really good biopic or you know, deep dive into architecture, but a lot of the principles apply and one of the things that even in my own profession of course as well as a lawyer, but one of the things that recurs to me is why is it so hard and why? Why does professionalism often something that you have to keep working on and that can fall away if you neglect it. And I think the little takeaways I would say is that our human condition really goes against the grain with professionalism. You know, conflicts of interest are often things we don't see ourselves and we have to work hard to look at and find other perspectives.
To really question whether we're in conflict. And in fact, someone said to me once, if there's no, if there's no conflict, there's no interest. So that can really go against dealing with things like conflict of interest. The other would be honesty. Um, as much as we'd all like to think we're very honest, I think that there are a lot of reasons why sometimes we can be dishonest without knowing or thinking that we're actually harming anybody. And that sort of leads also to things like cognitive dissonance. So we make a mistake, we're immediately trying to cover our tracks or prevent people from knowing. And so there are all these things in our human condition which play against professionalism and I just sort of put that out there as a comment to underpin this work because it is really helpful to think those to understand those behaviours that we have and put them in the context of all of this work that's been done to try to understand compliance culture.
Giorgio Marfella 36:19
Thank you, Bronwyn. And actually it's important to, I think architects, as we pointed out, have an internal understanding of being professional. But I should add as an architect myself, sometimes we feel a bit of a bit of imposters in the professional field. So, so we appreciate also having this perspective from a legal, but also the perspective of other professions that that have built up a certain knowledge that it's ultimately shared on these values of integrity and honesty, which must be some very abstract concepts, but they actually turn out to be very important in practice. And Theo from the perspective also DPC, we're going through a period of course of regulatory reform in Victoria building surveyors as well have certainly stepped up in the last few years in trying to raise the professional contribution they provide to the built environment. Do you see any analogies between what we have developed with the ARBV and some partners that may apply also in more broadly in the industry?
Theo, you're on mute. Sorry.
Theo Blanas 37:34
Apologies, of course. Um, thanks, Giorgio. Uh, yes, I I do see similarities. Um, I mean when this came up and we talked about compliance framework as a building surveyor and those that work with building surveyors like architects do, we are just that is our scope. We are in that compliance Um space and we we're constantly.
Trying to create that culture and look at ways of how we incorporate that throughout the building industry. So this is very much welcome.
Giorgio Marfella 38:03
Thank you, Theo. And Paul, very quickly also some comments from perspective of the the profession, then I'll hand over to Dariel. Do you, how do you think you can, do you see any scope to implement this initiative, you know?
Paul Viney 38:19
I think the first thing you've got to, we've got to do is we've got to actually accept that there are a range of issues and a range of non compliances, some of which are by I think ignorance or naivety, some of which by intent. I think we've got to try and rule out both.
As an ACA, we have a perspective that there's a clear link between compliance and business knowledge and maturity, that there is so many layers of regulation that we have to be aware of. It's very difficult for small practice to be across all of the IRHRNCC.
Any competition you go through, there's just there's so much that's involved, but we've got to rely upon our professional bodies to support that knowledge link. And I think one of the the key things is the value system that it's imperative that it's embedded within every practice that there is a value system that understands both professional business and regulatory obligations 'cause they all go hand in hand.
Giorgio Marfella 39:21
Thank you, Paul. Dariel, I can hand over back to you. I know you have some questions you like to ask. I thought I'd just sort of introduce a bit more and engage with the guests, but I can hand over to you for continuing. Thank you.
Dariel De Sousa 39:35
Sure. Thank you, Giorgio. So we've got a series of questions that we will open it up to the panellists. So the first one relates to architect status as a trusted professional and Bron‘s already touched on this, but the report suggests that a strong professional identity and compliance mindset will help differentiate architects from other building designers. So the question we have for you is, do you think that a strong compliance culture can help to differentiate architects? And from a compliance perspective, what must architects do in practical terms to successfully claim the status of trusted professionals?
Paul, can I start with you?
Paul Viney 40:17
Sure, thanks. Yeah, look, that's, I think to be honest, that's really a huge opportunity for architects because we're largely a relationship based business and there's clearly an opportunity for us to establish a demonstrator role as both a technical expert but also a trusted professional and advisor to the client. But there's a rider on that, we can't just take that for granted. We actually have to demonstrate a whole range of issues and things like highly developed, open communication skills, the ability to listen and actually understand what our client's saying, clearly established and explaining project roles and responsibilities so the client is well aware of the expectations of each party.
Theo Blanas 40:55
OK.
Paul Viney 40:56
One of the main ones is having real technical expertise with the within the area we're working. Just because we're an architect doesn't make us an expert in all fields. So we've got to be careful about both projects we actually take on. We need honesty and integrity in all our dealings and we need a genuine independence in the process.
And our belief is that the the regulations and the code of conduct actually set us apart. And if we would need to use those as our benchmark, they are the fundamentals by which we operate and they set us apart from the rest of the the industry. So I think there's a real opportunity.
But it's up to us to work hard at it and I think this is a great opportunity to acknowledge it and move forward.
Dariel De Sousa 41:37
Thanks so much, Paul. I really like your characterisation of this topic as an opportunity rather than a challenge or a threat. Theo, from a building surveyor perspective, can I ask you to respond to the question?
Theo Blanas 41:51
Yeah, sure. Thanks. Thanks, Dariel. Again, as a building surveyor and on behalf of the RSBS and the building regulator here in Victoria, we're governed by the Building Act and the building regs predominantly. So you know that that gives rise to the NCC, so the NCC being the minimum design standards.
We see design documentation by architects. It's a key component of the whole building permit documentation package that gets sent to the building staff for review and you know for them to be satisfied to the building permit. So it's really important to highlight some of those key milestones that have to be hit in that framework. So again, building's fair speaking regulation. Regulation 24 does specify that documentation package must contain sufficient information to show that the proposed building work will be compliant. Now that could mean anything, but what it doesn't mean is just references to Australian Standard.
You would have to detail go into the nitty gritty of what that means for that particular build that that particular proposal and that's some of the things that we like to see highlighted, you know things like wet area. So just referencing to an Australian standard isn't enough. We need to get into the details of what sort of substrate, how do the materials interact with each other, you know, and so forth. Primers and whatnot. Even think very simple things. You know, it's probably best to do examples of simple things like box gutters. It's not a matter of just leaving it to the plumber or leaving it down a line because once the trusses are in, if the box gutter design doesn't work, it's there's no work around.
It's a huge problem in the industry. So, so when we look at that the the the building permit package must show compliance and there's a list of things obviously in the regulations that talk about what the minimum documentation should show. But ultimately it needs to be submitted to the building surveyor and section 24 of the Building Act says the building surveyor must be satisfied that it shows compliance. So it's not for them to tell you how to design it or how to make it comply. It's actually an independent review. So where the building surveyor is sometimes lent upon to help with some of the process. What we're seeing more in the industry is consultant building surveyors coming across and being that guide in that in that space. So then the building surveyor there is the relevant building surveyor signing off that permit remains independent that that's really key in this whole compliance integrity process and ultimately that what would be guiding I guess these designs is the design documentation, does it have enough detail for the actual builder to build the thing without having to guess the bits in between or pass it to the subcontractors to guess the bits in between? I think that's a real key here. Someone had look when you're building these complex buildings, someone has to make a decision along the way. We would like to see architects make those decisions upfront as the competent registered professional rather than letting a builder or their subcontractors that falls somewhat outside the umbrella of review and overview how that's achieved on site. So that's.
Dariel De Sousa 44:58
Thanks, Theo. It's really helpful to understand the building surveying perspective and some of the issues that you mentioned about lack of detail in design documentation is sort of elaborated and considered in quite a bit of detail in the ARBV's previous systemic risk report. So thanks for that perspective. Bron, can I pass over to you?
Bronwyn Weir 45:21
Yeah, I think one of the challenges for architects, and it's reflected in one of the questions that one of the listeners has put on, is there are a lot of things that architects do that others can do and that are allowed, they're allowed to do. And so you've constantly got this pressure and potential erosion of what it is the architect can offer and how they can be undercut by others that don't have the privilege of being able to call themselves an architect. And I appreciate, I really do appreciate that. I think what I would say is that that is not unique to architects. I think lots of professions are constantly having others come into their space seeking to do bits and pieces of what that profession does in a way that that is cheaper or that purports to offer the same sort of quality when it doesn't. I mean we have it in in law as well and.
Theo Blanas 46:02
Oh.
Bronwyn Weir 46:15
Often the tendency is to say we want you to, we want the regulators to stop those people from doing that. We want the regulators to give us exclusivity and that would be nice, but it doesn't always happen. I mean, project managers is a classic example in construction, the rise of project managers over the last.
Giorgio Marfella 46:24
OK.
Bronwyn Weir 46:34
Couple of decades has been incredible. They're their fullest courses at university and the people that are becoming project managers are people that might otherwise in the past have become engineers, building surveyors or architects and they're doing bits and pieces of those roles in a in a largely unaccounted for fashion and having enormous influence in the industry. So I think rather than necessarily throw your hands up in the air and say, well, how do we deal with this? What I would say is the the profession of architects is a well-known profession. I think most people in the society would understand what an architect does. It is a real privilege to hold that title, and I would encourage anyone who has qualified to it as an architect to go ahead and become registered and be able to hold that title proudly as I do as a lawyer. The minute you are able to hold a practicing certificate as a lawyer, you do. That's part of being professional.
So I think that architects do have something to hold on to, to distinguish themselves on. And it's really important that these concepts of professionalism are heavily embedded so that you can be proud to hold that title and you will not be able to stop others coming in and trying to take your space. But you do need to, I think, stand firm on the fact that you are a recognised profession and continue to work on these issues around compliance, culture, integrity and so that people understand when they go to an architect they are getting something more than perhaps a designer or some someone else that's purporting to deliver similar services.
So I would just encourage you to accept that you are a profession, you are a title that people understand as a profession and it's up to the profession to maintain that integrity and to really try to distinguish themselves and create the value proposition that you you're different from project managers, you're different from draftees, and you're worth paying for or having on the job.
Dariel De Sousa 48:42
Thanks so much, Bron. I like those core messages of standing strong, standing firm and standing proud and really appreciating the privilege that professionalism brings. If we can move to the next question about, you know, converting these overarching duties into fully integrated part of professional practice. So the report highlights that architects overarching duties go to the heart of what it means to be a professional and transcend firm size, type, project and procurement model. The question for you is from your perspective, how could or should architects ensure that overarching duties are fully integrated into professional practice rather than abstract principles and what outcomes would you expect to see as a result? And obviously we've put forward some strategies that we are recommending in the report, but we'd be interested to hear from the three of you as to how you think these overarching duties could be integrated. Bron, can I start with you on this one?
Bronwyn Weir 49:46
Uh, yeah. Look, I think, you know, the report itself gives a lot of tips on this, but you have to understand what your obligations are to start with. So making sure you educate yourself, um, it is, it can be difficult as a small business, but it can also be difficult as a large business where you've got a lot of people that you need to keep eyes on. So I think the challenges for different sized businesses are there and have to be understood and recognized as to how you go about educating yourself and if you're a leader in a larger business, how you make sure that those that are working within your business are displaying those levels of integrity through your leadership.
Theo Blanas 50:26
OK.
Bronwyn Weir 50:26
Models. So I think educating, constantly thinking about, as I mentioned earlier, these these human conditions that we have that undermine professionalism without us even knowing it and being very aware of those so that there is transparency and we can call those things out and understand that there are these sort of forces within ourselves individually as well as collectives that do sometimes pull us away from integrity and really just trying all the time to keep it in the forefront of our minds in the decisions that we make and in second guessing ourselves before we potentially go down into places which lack integrity.
Dariel De Sousa 51:10
Thanks so much, Bron. And the point you raise at the outset about the different challenges that small and large firms face is one that we took great stock of in preparing the report and we've tried to tailor the advice and strategies based on those distinct challenges. Paul, can I pass over to you to have a go at this question?
Paul Viney 51:30
Yeah. Thanks, Dariel. There's a couple just in terms of breaking down a little further in terms of overarching duties, there's a couple that really stand out to me and it's the requirement to deliver work within agreed timeframes and budgets. It's the understanding in business terms of when you take on a project, do you have the right technical expertise to actually deliver that project? Are you taking onboard something you don't have the capacity to do? Do you have the resources to complete the project within the right time frame? And are we ensuring that we're that we're actually supervising unqualified staff in the process. So we've got to understand those key, those core requirements, but compliance must be a leadership priority. It's something that needs to be set out as clear priorities and policies within the office and it should be part of the QA system which should underpin its importance.
It really needs to be embedded as part of the culture and not a sort of bolt on that's referenced occasionally when we when we're looking something up. It's got to be what we do on a day-to-day base rather than what we occasionally do as part of the process. And the expected outcomes are we raise the quality of the product that we're providing, we get better value in terms of the way in which the consumer sees us and we improve the the profession, which is what we're all aiming to do. So I think it's fundamentally necessary that we go through this continuous improvement process that you referred to.
Dariel De Sousa 52:56
Thanks so much, Paul. And you've sort of highlighted the importance of really considering how these various duties apply in practice in different contexts, and we'll certainly be unpacking some of that in the subsequent webinars. Theo, can I pass to you for this question?
Theo Blanas 53:11
Yeah, sure. Thanks, Dariel. So I guess to compliment what's been said as well from a building surveyor point of view, well firstly, we welcome this sort of thinking about compliance. Sometimes we feel as building surveyors or building regulators, we're the only ones thinking about compliance. So it's very welcome to see other professions really consider it and put so much time and effort as you have in in doing so. So that's great. One of the, you know, one of the findings that we've seen over the time and I don't want to talk over Bronwyn because it's basically her finding is that inadequate the link between poor documentation and you know project variations, construction costs blowing out, non compliant matters and so forth. So we see the finished product of that architectural firm producing a set of drawings. So then there are a number of factors why there may be poor documentation, but what we see, we don't know that we just see that there is poor documentation.
It lacks details. It's either non-compliant or it's just insufficient information. What you know, hearing what Paul said as well, it goes back to scope as well. So being engaged, it's not just having the capability, it's actually scoping what is needed for a particular project.
So sometimes, you know, there are these pressures, commercial pressures, you know, this is outside my space, but there are commercial pressures to deliver something for a certain budget, certain time. But you might need more than that because once it gets to the building permit or construction costs, we only have those drawings to scrutinize.
And if they do lack, then it is a reflection of is compliance being considered here. So it's it's yeah, I guess I can leave it at that on that.
Dariel De Sousa 54:58
Thanks so much, Theo. And you sort of illustrated the cascading consequences that could arise if compliance isn't taken seriously at the design stage and you see sort of pointy end of the process when you know the compliance hasn't been achieved and there may be poor built outcomes.
Theo Blanas 55:02
Yeah.
Dariel De Sousa 55:17
Just in the in the interest of time, I might just skip to the last question which relates to sector wide collaboration to strengthen compliance culture and the report calls for all participants in the construction sector to work collaboratively, collaboratively and collectively to improve, improve compliance culture with architects encouraged to lead by example. We're interested to know, given the interconnected nature of the construction ecosystem, in practical terms, how can architects both lead as well as collaborate with developers, builders, engineers, etcetera to strengthen compliance?
Culture across the construction sector. This is the $1,000,000 question. Theo, can I start with you?
Theo Blanas 56:04
Yeah, sure. This is probably an opportunity for me to spruik some of the work we've done. So we've got a working group at the moment with Architects, ACA, ARBV, AIA and so forth. Most architects that work in that apartment space would have seen a documentation guide that was issued last year.
That speaks to this, this item. So a lot of that isn't just setting out minimum requirements, but it's actually talking about coordination and collaboration amongst the design team. It talks about some of those issues about scoping projects. You know, there's no point having one set of drawings that comply and then another set of engineering or services or some other drawings that comply, but they don't actually talk to each other. They really need that collaborative coordinating lens and we see architects as being the best placed profession to actually coordinate that. So that's what we would like to see moving forward, yeah.
Dariel De Sousa 57:01
Thanks so much, Theo, Bron.
Bronwyn Weir 57:06
Yeah, Dariel, I one of my favourite sayings is birds of a feather and it can work both ways. We do see, um, people that lack integrity collecting together. And when you have, um, a poor quality architect, a poor quality building surveyor, a poor quality engineer with a poor quality builder and sometimes an unreasonable owner, you get fireworks and that is all too common, unfortunately. So what I would say in terms of collaboration is align yourself to other professionals that share good integrity, good values around ethical behaviour, and be in teams with other professionals and other consultants that share your values and socialise in those circles, work in those circles and strive to really understand who the other consultants are on the project and try to work with the best of the best and and fit amongst those and those sorts of collaborative strong relationships between business with good integrity will produce fantastic results, and anyone who's doing the right thing will want to associate themselves with other professionals that are as well, because, um, you know, they're the ones that, um, they're the ones that make me get out of bed every morning and try and make the industry better through the work that I do with governments.
Dariel De Sousa 58:24
Thanks so much, Bron. A really powerful metaphor, the birds of the feather. I really like that. Paul, can we finish with you and then I'll pass back to Giorgio to for some concluding remarks and apologies for going slightly over time to the audience.
Paul Viney 58:39
OK, I want to build a little on both what Theo and Bronwyn said. The work that they that Theo have been doing in terms of the minimum standard of documentation, we not only want to commend, but we want to actually get further to make it a a legislative requirement, not just a good idea. And in terms of the the idea of Birds of a Feather, we believe the fundamental principle that each part in the process has a part to play and need to be treated as part of the team. There's there's an issue of respect and an understanding that everyone has something to offer and we're not unique in their own skills, that we need to have very clearly defined roles and responsibilities and they need to be understood and respected by all.
And one of the key ones is that risks need to be fairly shared. That's one of the the real problems we have in the industry at present. The risks have been disproportionately handled around. So we need contracts that are fair and balanced and we need to foster open communication and we need to consider.
Theo Blanas 59:23
OK.
Paul Viney 59:34
Cross industry CBD programs that not just for an architect, but the architect, the builder, the building surveyor. We need to get in the same room. We need to be talking to each other. We need to be building trust as a fundamental part of this process because we can't do this in isolation.
That's the reason I'd like to leave.
Dariel De Sousa 59:56
Thanks so much, uh, Paul. Really appreciate everyone's time. I'll pass uh over to Giorgio just to for some concluding.
Giorgio Marfella 1:00:00
And thank you, Dariel, and thank you Paul, Bronwyn and Theo as well. We have some questions on the side. I don't think we have time to go through them, but perhaps I'll just respond more broadly in one that makes a suggestion that somehow everybody else can do the architect's job well.
This is somewhat true in the sense that perhaps architects don't have exclusive rights in providing certain services, but you should be reminded that nobody can be an architect unless they're an architect. So in other words, the architect role, it is protected by law and there's a specificity about the role the Architects play. So whilst project managers cannot be architects, but architects can actually do what project managers do as a matter of fact. So, so it's important to remind ourselves that actually there is still a role to play and I and I also would like to echo of course you know Paul's comments about fairness of contractual arrangement, clarity of roles and all that so.
But notwithstanding all that, we believe that there is an underlining opportunity for actually to express a good culture and a culture in this case of compliance that goes beyond and also provides good design and good benefits. So hopefully I can wrap it up with this comment, but by all means we will endeavour to respond to some other questions that were more specific and no doubt we'll come back also with more webinars and we'll also take on board the suggestion. And of course we will like to have a host here also representative from other parts of the industry about it be like we did today as well I suppose.
So with this, I'd like to thank everybody and our speakers again and I wish to see you next time for the next ARBV webinar. Have a good afternoon.
Theo Blanas 1:01:45
Thank you.
Paul Viney 1:01:45
This is all. Thank you.
Dariel De Sousa 1:01:45
Thanks everyone. Bye, bye.
Updated