Wednesday, 1 April 2026

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (18:54): (2474) My matter for the adjournment tonight is for the attention of the Minister for Housing and Building. It concerns the issue of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria, which the government, following the material that came forward from Helen Silver’s review, has said is to be abolished and rolled into some generic board. I hasten to add that architects are a very important part of our community. They are an ancient and respected profession that is self-governed, and the board is a board that does not cost the government, the taxpayer, directly any money. Architects are levied fees which they have to pay to have that registration. But the government’s plan is to get rid of that board and roll the architects in with some generic unknown model. I am very concerned about the decisions that are being made here.

I believe that architects should be registered separately and in their own specialist registration board, as we have in Victoria at the moment. The government had a go at this before the last election. They tried to get rid of the architects board. There was a really strong push, and now they are back at it again and trying to do this. I hasten to add there is no evidence that removing the architects registration board will see better quality buildings, safer buildings or buildings where there are less problems for the public. None of that has been shown by anyone; in fact in my view the opposite is likely to be true.

Nick McGowan: They are relying upon them for the new schemes.

David DAVIS: Mr McGowan, you are probably right. This is the kind of concern that I am drawing attention to. What I want to hear from the minister is for her to explain publicly why the government is going after the architects registration board in the way it is. I have read what is in the Silver review, but the case has not been made. The government has not made the case for deregistering architects in this way, for stripping their registration board out and for preventing a profession from self-governing in this proper way. There is no evidence that a better outcome can be achieved. A superboard of some type is intended; there is no evidence that that will lead to a better outcome. This at the end of the day is about quality regulation, ensuring that buildings and design are done to a high standard and ensuring that consumers are protected. None of that is going to be advanced by gutting the architecture profession and its registration board.