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, founder of Carpenters for Housing Reform Victoria, and the driving force behind the Registered Residential Carpenter initiative.
His practical experience informs the reform initiative's approach to renovation responsibility, evidence frameworks, and consumer protection.
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 the renovation responsibility gap and evaluate the proposed pathway on its merits.
The reform proposition
What is being proposed?
This initiative proposes a bounded Registered Residential Carpenter pathway for experienced carpenters undertaking defined residential renovation work in Victoria.
The proposed pathway would define where practical renovation carpentry ends and domestic builder responsibility begins. It is not intended to expand the scope of carpentry work, but to make the existing boundary more visible, lawful and enforceable.
This is
- A proposal for a defined, bounded pathway
- A consumer-facing framework with published scope
- A handoff model with mandatory builder triggers
- A pilot concept for government to test and evaluate
- A response to an observed, practical regulatory gap
The renovation responsibility gap
The problem this initiative addresses
Victoria's current framework does not clearly define where practical renovation carpentry ends and where a registered domestic builder must take responsibility. This creates genuine difficulty for consumers, carpenters, builders, insurers and regulators.
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 examine the renovation responsibility gap and evaluate a bounded RRC pathway. It is not asking government to adopt the model, implement regulation, or endorse any specific outcome.
The specific requests are:
- Formally examine the renovation responsibility gap — assess whether the current boundary between residential carpentry work and domestic builder responsibility is clear, enforceable and consumer-accessible.
- Consult experienced practitioners and stakeholders — engage renovation carpenters, registered builders, insurers, building surveyors, engineers and consumers about practical boundary conditions.
- Assess a bounded RRC registration or endorsement pathway — evaluate whether a defined, limited registration or endorsement category could address the identified gap.
- Define included and excluded work — develop clear scope definitions in collaboration with industry, regulators and consumer representatives.
- Develop statutory handoff rules — establish clear, enforceable triggers for when builder, engineer, building surveyor or specialist involvement is required.
- Test evidence and audit requirements — examine what practitioner documentation should be required as a condition of operating within the pathway.
- Examine insurance settings — assess what insurance arrangements should apply to RRC practitioners operating within defined scope.
- Establish a limited pilot before statewide implementation — test the pathway with a defined group of experienced carpenters before any broader regulatory change.
- Evaluate outcomes before expansion — assess pilot results against defined success measures before considering any extension of scope or statewide rollout.
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.