ARBV Update

Edition 23, September 2025

Welcome to the September ARBV Update!

Last month we released a special edition of the ARBV Update. The focus of the special update was the amended legislation making changes to the renewal process in the Architects Act and the release of the ARBV research report ‘Strengthening compliance culture in the architecture sector’.

This month we issued a letter to all directors and partners of approved companies and partnerships. This letter outlined director and partner obligations in ensuring all employees are appropriately registered. See our article on ‘holding out’ below for more information.

In upcoming news, the ARBV continues to work closely with the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) to ensure the smooth sunsetting of the Architect Regulations 2015. The Regulations are due to be replaced in April 2026, with consultation facilitated by DTP planned for later this year.

To read our media release about the amendments to the Architects Act, click here

To read our media release about our report ‘Strengthening compliance culture in the architecture sector’, click here

There are a range of  webinars coming up as part of the ARBV CPD program. 

We are anticipating holding 10 formal CPD webinars for the financial year. 

The following upcoming webinars are anticipated but full details are yet to be published (so look at for emails from us prior to the events): 

• October; Modern methods of construction 

• November; Compliance culture - Duty to clients

• December; Working with Country

Changes to PII for 2026

Architects, companies and partnerships must provide the ARBV at renewal with proof of required professional indemnity insurance coverage until 30 June the following year.

This means all registrants will need to ensure they have at least 12 months of insurance coverage to cover the registration period. For example, if you apply for registration or return to the practising class in February your insurance coverage must run from February to 30 June. You will then have to provide insurance coverage from 1 July to 30 June during the renewal period for the next registration period. Alternatively, in this scenario you could provide 16 months of coverage from February to cover until 30 June the following year.

The ARBV understands that this change will require adjustments. Therefore, we will consider shorter periods during a transition period providing insurance coverage remains continuous.

We expect that architects and architectural companies and partnerships will have transitioned to this cycle by the 2027 renewal.

Frequently asked questions

At the ARBV we receive a range of questions throughout the year from both architects and consumers. Following our recent webinar ‘A design perspective on condensation management’  we were not able to respond to all questions raised during the webinar. Below we have included responses from our presenter, Tim Law PhD (Architecture), on a number of questions that were raised.

1. Do you know if Proclima Extrasana meets the NCC requirements?

Not for Class 2 buildings requiring Type A/B fire-resisting construction. To meet the deemed non-combustible by exception under C2D10,  “Sarking-type materials that do not exceed 1 mm in thickness and have a Flammability Index not greater than 5.” (6f). Note that ‘flammability index’ is a defined term referencing AS1530.2 which state under its Scope 

This method applies to the testing of thin sheet or woven material which is sufficiently pliable to be inserted into the test apparatus by hand without special softening treatment, so that it may be graded according to a flammability index. The test is unsuitable for materials which melt readily or shrink away from an igniting flame.” (emphasis added).

This categorically excludes plastic membranes, and by extension, no plastic membrane can meet the AS1530.2 testing for exception to be deemed non-combustible in an external wall.

2. Does RAB Rigid board still comply with NCC requirement as it's not pliable building membrane, but it's vapour permeable and water barrier?

‘Pliable building membrane’ (PBM) is a defined term under AS4200.1:

• A material that is able to be folded back on itself without causing structural damage to the product that affects its material properties.

NCC2019/NCC2022 redefined the term to be:

• A water barrier as classified by AS 4200.1.

The NCC definition overrules the AS, see A4.1 ‘Differences between referenced documents and the NCC’:

• The NCC overrules any difference between the NCC and a primary referenced document, including any secondary referenced document.

My reading is that a PBM would need to meet both criteria under the NCC redefinition: (1) it needs to be pliable (2) it needs to be a water barrier. On that basis a rigid air barrier (RAB) is not a PBM.

3. What do you think about "Multipanel" a high-density polyurethane composite material to be used on balcony over habitable room? To replace traditional waterproofing?

That would be a performance solution in an area where there is no DtS guidance, and so one cannot approach it using A2G2 (1)(b):

• the solution is at least equivalent to the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions.

This means the only pathway is to comply, from scratch (so to speak) with the Performance Requirement, which as I have presented, involves entering at least in part into a health consideration.

4. Condensation in flat roofs was never an issue when using anticon blanket. However, with NCC 2022 introducing a ventilation requirement, the available solutions do not address our original concern—instead, they are creating new problems with water ingress. Is there a performance solution available?

A roofing blanket is a not a solution in itself as there is negligible R-value once it is compressed over the battens. Water ingress through the vents can be managed by designing the vents to be under the eaves at both low and high level of the roof overhang. Performance solutions are always available, but the performance requirement for condensation management is extremely high.

5. What is your take on applying passive-house principles / high performance houses with HRV system to a building with regards to condensation management?

An acceptable approach. However, in Melbourne where energy retailers are offering unlimited unmetered electricity for 2-3h daily, there are simpler solutions to thermal comfort and condensation management.

6. Some clients hermetically seal their houses and avoid opening doors and windows. NCC condensation provisions help. Should architects always warn clients against this practice.

It may not be an issue if the house is equipped with 24-7 heat recovery ventilation. It also depends on the extent of the air-tightness of the building. You can explain to them that F8D4 has no practical meaning if there is no make up air to replace the exhausted air.

7. Would using moisture-resistant plasterboard make a difference in ceilings, beyond just in wet areas?

The MR (Moisture Resistant) rating for plasterboard is based on structural moisture resistance, not biological resistance such as protection against mould. The relevant standard (AS/NZS 2588) defines performance through water absorption and strength testing, focusing on limiting water ingress and maintaining the board’s integrity, but does not require or guarantee resistance to fungal or microbial growth.

Resources from the webinar ‘A design perspective on condensation management’

Below are links to some of the literature referenced in the webinar held on 12 August 2025.

Architectural Science Review | Taylor & Francis Online

Scoping study of condensation in residential buildings

Inquiry into Biotoxin-related Illnesses in Australia | Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

Condensation-in-buildings-guide-2019.pdf

bso2020_Law.pdf

Moisture accumulation and mould growth for 6-Star and 7-Star housing (Research Report 4: Final Report)

Hygrothermal Performance of Vapour-Permeable Wall Membranes in Cooler Australian Climates: Comparative Modelling and Sensitivity Analysis – Addendum, January 2022

Final-Report-Condensation-Mitigation-Modelling.pdf

NCC 2022 Consolidated Requirements

Navigating the Rise of Toxic Mould Exclusions in Professional Indemnity Insurance

Melbourne Big Build

ARBV will be attending the Melbourne Big Build on 22 and 23 October.

Get your tickets below!

‘Holding out’ offences – how architects, architect directors/partners and architectural practices can avoid breaching the Architects Act

The Architects Act (the Act) prohibits the ‘holding out’ or representing of an unregistered person or body (partnership or company) to be an architect or as providing architectural services (see sections 4 to 7). The ARBV engages with people and businesses who provide services relating to the design and construction of buildings which are commonly carried out by architects (for example, building designers, builders and planners) to ensure that they do not breach these provisions of the Act.

However, it is not simply those people or businesses who do not hold ARBV registration or approval that need to be mindful of this prohibition. Architects, architect directors/partners and managers of architectural practices of all sizes must also be careful not to ‘hold out’ unregistered people or unapproved bodies as being an architect. Simply refraining from using the title of an architect in relation to an unregistered person does not protect from potential prosecution. Phrases or descriptions that may create the impression that an unregistered person is an architect or provides the services of an architect may be enough to constitute a representation that the person is an architect in breach of the Act.

Architects, architect directors/partners and architectural practices must therefore:

• Ensure all members of staff who provide architectural services are registered with ARBV or are working towards becoming registered under supervision.
• Provide architectural services only through an approved company or partnership (unless a sole trader registered with the ARBV).
• Be transparent and open about qualifications and registrations and be careful how these are represented in published materials to ensure that there is no mistaking an unregistered person for an architect.
• Exercise caution when describing or representing unregistered members of staff (for example, on the practice’s website and professional networking and social media sites). Care must be taken to ensure that clients or prospective clients are not under any misapprehension about the status of unregistered staff who may be working on their project.
• Critically assess the information published on their website and on professional networking and social media sites to assess the overall impression that is being created by that information.
• Be careful when working outside architectural firms not to represent their employer or business as providing architectural services.

Failing to take these steps may lead to a client or prospective client believing that they have been deliberately misled or deceived, which may result in a complaint to the ARBV. The ARBV has the power to prosecute individuals and bodies for breaches of the Act. A breach of the Act is a criminal offence and prosecution may result in a conviction and/or the imposition of a financial penalty. If an architect has breached the Act, this may result in a professional conduct investigation and referral to the Architects Tribunal.

We are currently preparing guidance materials to help avoid breaches of the Act.  These guidance materials will be published on our website soon and will cover:

• architects who are company directors and partners
• unregistered/non-architect directors of approved companies and partnerships
• managers of architectural practices
• approved companies or partnerships that have a multi-disciplinary team that includes architects, building designers and town planners
• builders who provide in-house or design and construct
• holders of architectural qualifications
• architects working in allied professions
• unregistered people
• registered building designers
• people who own, run or manage a business that employs or engages building designers
• builders who provide in-house or design and construct services

Open House Melbourne Walk

As part of the OHM July weekend, ARBV hosted a walking tour, ‘The tales of Melbourne Theatres’.

Led by conservation architects Dan Blake and Christophe Loustau, Directors of Conservation Studio, the walk took visitors on a guided tour of seven of Melbourne’s most iconic theatres, the Princess Theatre, the Forum, the Regent, the Melbourne Athenaeum, Capital House, Her Majesty’s Theatre and the Comedy Theatre.

The tour examined the significance of each building, detailing the importance they play in Melbourne’s history and the many transformations they have undergone over the decades.

The tour ran twice, was sold out, and had over 50 people in attendance.

August Home Show

The ARBV once again attended the August Home Show held at MCEC on 22 to 24 August.

The Melbourne Home Show is Australia’s longest running home improvement expo held over 3 consecutive days. The ARBV attended to bring awareness of the importance of registration to the Victorian public. 

The Melbourne Home Show was a great opportunity for the ARBV to reach out to the thousands of people who passed through the doors of the Show, bringing attention to both the ARBV and the important role of architects in Victoria’s built environment.

ARBV staff met with members of the general public, students and even a few familiar architects throughout the weekend. Staff highlighted the ARBV’s role and the resources available to consumers to ensure architectural services are provided by registered and approved entities. Staff also provided information for consumers about working with an architect and information about pathways to registration for those interested in pursuing a career in the industry.