This is not
- A backdoor builder licence
- Permission to build new homes
- Removal of builder responsibility
- Unrestricted structural work
- Deregulation of the building sector
This initiative is an industry-led reform proposal. It does not claim Victorian Government endorsement and has not been adopted as government policy.
About the proponent · Victoria
Dan Sonsie — Practitioner and Reform Proponent
Dan Sonsie is an experienced Victorian residential renovation carpenter with approximately 20 years of practical carpentry experience and founder of Carpenters for Housing Reform Victoria.
His practical experience informs practitioner-led reform work on carpenter registration and licensing implementation, occupational progression, existing-building capability, evidence frameworks and consumer protection. Registered Residential Carpenter remains an earlier developed candidate model within that wider work.
Practical experience
Renovation work that shapes the reform
Dan's carpentry practice has focused on residential renovation — work that regularly involves concealed conditions, changed scope, and decisions about when to involve other professionals.
His practical experience includes:
- Bathroom and kitchen renovations, including substrate repairs, framing replacement and coordination with licensed trades
- Structural framing repairs — wall studs, lintels, bearers, joists and subfloor systems
- External cladding, weatherboard and building envelope work
- Window and door installations, including rectification of out-of-square openings
- Subfloor and under-house remediation, including timber decay and termite damage
- Concealed-condition work — rot, pest damage, failed framing and altered load paths discovered after demolition
- Coordination of renovation stages involving builders, engineers, licensed plumbers, waterproofers, tilers and homeowners
This first-hand experience of where renovation responsibility becomes unclear — and where consumers and practitioners lack a clear framework — is the foundation of the reform initiative.
The initiative is grounded in practical renovation experience, not theory. The reform proposition reflects genuine on-the-ground observation of where the current system creates ambiguity.
Credentials and scope
What Dan is — and what this initiative is not claiming
Dan Sonsie is an experienced practitioner who has observed the renovation responsibility boundary from a practical, on-the-ground perspective.
This initiative does not claim:
- formal government authority or endorsement
- representation of an industry association or peak body
- a mandate from the building or carpentry sector
- academic qualifications in law, planning or engineering
The reform initiative is an industry-led, evidence-based proposal. It invites government, regulators, builders, insurers, surveyors, engineers, training organisations and consumer representatives to examine registration implementation, occupational progression, existing-building capability questions and candidate recognition models on their merits.
Current reform architecture
What is being examined?
This initiative examines Victoria's current carpenter registration and licensing reform, what the resulting baseline arrangements may recognise, require and authorise, how existing competence may transition into them, and whether any additional capability question remains once those arrangements are clearer.
Registered Residential Carpenter remains a developed candidate implementation model if later evidence supports additional recognition. It is not the reform architecture itself, and it is not presented as a settled government request or predetermined outcome.
This is
- An evidence-led review of baseline registration implementation
- A practitioner-led examination of progression and existing-building capability
- A consumer-focused framework for scope, accountability and handoff questions
- A developed RRC model available for comparison if further recognition is justified
- A contribution to government, regulator and industry evaluation
The renovation responsibility gap
The problem this initiative addresses
One question in Victoria's current consultation is whether the baseline arrangements ultimately adopted will clearly define where practical carpentry ends and where domestic builder responsibility must take over. If those arrangements do not resolve the issue, a narrower additional capability question may remain.
What consumers face
Homeowners undertaking renovations often do not understand when a carpenter, builder, engineer or specialist is required. The regulatory boundary is not written in plain language accessible to ordinary consumers.
What practitioners face
Experienced carpenters regularly encounter conditions after demolition begins that were not visible at the time of quoting. Hidden rot, termite damage, failed framing, out-of-level substrates and altered load paths can change the nature of a job within hours.
When that happens, the practitioner — and the consumer — face a practical question the current system does not answer clearly: who is responsible, and what should happen next?
What the grey boundary produces
The current boundary can contribute to:
- informal work arrangements where responsibility is unclear
- liability confusion when hidden conditions change the scope
- delayed decisions when no clear escalation pathway exists
- weak evidence trails when work is completed without documentation
- limited formal career progression for qualified carpenters
Other contributing factors
Regulatory ambiguity is not the only cause of informal renovation work. A range of factors contribute, including:
- affordability pressures on homeowners
- consumer behaviour and willingness to accept risk
- practitioner incentives to avoid complex regulatory pathways
- enforcement capacity constraints
- builder availability for smaller renovation jobs
- project size falling below commercial thresholds
Regulation alone will not eliminate informal work. However, a clearer, lawful pathway may reduce ambiguity, provide a credible alternative, and make the boundary more visible to consumers, practitioners and regulators.
An honest challenge
Why does renovation work currently occur in the boundary zone?
The renovation market operates in the space between licensed trades and registered builders partly because regulatory clarity is absent. But it also operates there because that is where the practical work is.
Many renovation projects begin as carpentry work and evolve as conditions are revealed. Some of that evolution is predictable; much of it is not. Concealed conditions are a normal feature of existing residential buildings.
A new registration category would not automatically redirect all boundary-zone work into lawful, regulated pathways. Informal work occurs for multiple reasons. An effective pathway would need to:
- reduce ambiguity by publishing clear scope definitions
- create a lawful and practical alternative to informal arrangements
- remain affordable and accessible to experienced carpenters
- be enforceable by regulators with realistic enforcement capacity
- prevent scope migration through defined handoff triggers
- provide clear escalation to builders and engineers when scope changes
- include evidence and audit requirements that create accountability
The question the initiative asks government to examine is not whether regulation can eliminate informal work. It is whether a clearer, bounded pathway would reduce ambiguity, improve consumer protection and provide a better alternative to the current situation.
Government engagement
What we are asking the Victorian Government to consider
This initiative is asking the Victorian Government to clarify the proposed registration and licensing arrangements first, then test whether any additional existing-building capability question remains once those arrangements are clearer. It is not asking government to adopt RRC, implement regulation, or endorse any specific outcome.
The specific requests are:
- Clarify the proposed carpenter registration and licensing arrangements — assess what competence, scope, accountability, qualifications, experience settings and interfaces with contracting authority the arrangements may recognise, require and authorise.
- Consult experienced practitioners and stakeholders — engage renovation carpenters, registered builders, insurers, building surveyors, engineers and consumers about implementation, transition and practical boundary conditions.
- Test whether any materially different capability question remains — examine whether existing-building investigation, condition assessment, progressive scope determination and escalation judgement remain materially distinct once the baseline arrangements are clearer.
- Assess whether any additional capability can be reliably defined and measured — review candidate capability domains, evidence requirements and independent assessment options.
- Keep capability, builder authority and contracting authority separate — ensure that any capability finding does not automatically confer domestic builder status, contracting permissions or expanded statutory scope.
- Compare proportionate mechanisms only after the evidence is tested — evaluate RRC, DB-L reform, endorsement, advanced credential, another government-selected mechanism, or no further recognition.
- Consider any pilot only if safeguards are workable — test limited implementation only if government later concludes that additional capability recognition remains justified and can be evaluated safely.
The initiative does not claim the Victorian Government has agreed to examine, adopt or implement the proposed pathway. These are requests for examination, not statements of government commitment.