1. The BPB adduced expert evidence from Dr Price, a consulting engineer and academic from Monash University. Dr Price gave evidence that he had lectured in design, management, maintenance and engineering management and was the supervisor of many postgraduate students. He also said that he was involved in establishing various course structures within the engineering faculty of Monash University and other institutions.
2. Dr Price gave evidence that the Applicant had not presented a case to demonstrate that his qualifications were equivalent to a mechanical engineering degree. He said that the Applicant's academic qualifications and practical experience would merely allow him a credit or exemption from a few subjects or a part of the year in a four-year accredited engineering degree.
3. Mr Woods made reference to the field of study comprising a mechanical engineering course offered by Monash University. He referred to the 2014 Monash University Handbook, which set out the compulsory and elective subjects available over the four year course. These included:
   • (a) Advanced engineering mathematics A,
   • (b) Dynamics;
   • (c) Engineering design;
   • (d) Fluid mechanics;
   • (e) Thermodynamics;
   • (f) Engineering computational analysis;
   • (g) Thermodynamics and heat transfer;
   • (h) Solid mechanics;
   • (i) Systems and control;
   • (j) Refrigeration and air-conditioning;
   • (k) Industrial noise;
   • (l) Robotics; and
   • (m) Wind engineering;
4. Dr Price gave evidence that hydraulic engineering and fire protection building services only comprised a very small proportion of the field of study included in a mechanical engineering degree course. His evidence was not contested on this point. Indeed, both Mr Maroulis and Mr Varveris confirmed that the degree course offered very little in qualifying, training and educating persons in the narrower field of hydraulic engineering and fire protection building services.

1. Both parties have pointed to a lacuna in the registration process, insofar as it relates to hydraulic engineering and fire protection. In particular, in Victoria, there is no specific registration category in the field of hydraulic engineering and fire protection building services. The BPB lists that field of engineering as falling within the category of mechanical engineer. Therefore, in order to obtain registration as a building practitioner, working in the field of hydraulic engineering and fire protection building services, a person must meet the prescribed qualification of either having a degree in mechanical engineering, combined with three years practical experience; be registered as a mechanical engineer on the National Professional Engineers Register as a mechanical engineer, or otherwise possess an equivalent qualification.
2. The irony of this present system of registration is that the field of study which comprises the bachelor degree in mechanical engineering devotes very little attention to the field of hydraulic engineering and fire protection building services. Indeed, Dr Price opined that it only represented 5% of the total course load. What that means, in essence, is that a person seeking registration to work solely in the field of hydraulic engineering and fire protection building services is required to study an engineering course, in which 95% of the course load is dedicated to other aspects of engineering. This irony is exacerbated by the fact that a significant component of engineering work in the building industry concerns hydraulic engineering and fire protection building services.
3. The Applicant submitted that this lacuna has been addressed in other jurisdictions, such as Queensland, where building practitioner registration recognises hydraulic engineering and fire protection building services as a separate and distinct class of registration. Regrettably, that is not the case in Victoria.
4. Moreover, Dr Price indicated that this situation remains unchanged under the national certification scheme as the National Professional Engineers Register does not recognise diploma qualifications as being sufficient to obtain registration as a mechanical engineer.

1. The Applicant, together with Mr Varveris, gave evidence that a number of registered building practitioners in the class of mechanical engineer obtained registration, even though they did not complete an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering. The Applicant contended that the BPB had, historically, granted registration to persons holding diplomas in the required field, together with adequate practical experience. Indeed, Mr Varveris said that he obtained his building registration approximately 15 years ago without having had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering. He said that he had a diploma of construction engineering - hydraulics, as well as other diplomas, which the BPB considered equivalent qualification to entitle him to be registered as a mechanical engineer. Accordingly, the Applicant argued that the approach it has taken in refusing his application is inconsistent with the approach it has taken historically.
2. Mr Woods submitted that there is no evidence demonstrating that the Applicant has equivalent academic qualifications to an undergraduate who has completed a mechanical engineering degree. As we have already commented, the BPB concedes that the Applicant has extensive knowledge, experience and qualifications relating to hydraulic engineering and fire protection building services. However, that only represents a small proportion of the course load that would ordinarily be studied in a mechanical engineering degree.
3. In our view, the submission made by Mr Woods is correct. There simply is no evidence of the Applicant having any experience or qualifications in the wide spectrum of subjects that would ordinarily be undertaken as part of a mechanical engineering degree, save for the area of hydraulic engineering and fire protection. Indeed, the Applicant concedes that his qualifications and experience are confined to the work that he currently undertakes.
4. Mr Woods further submitted that the danger in granting registration to the Applicant as a mechanical engineer is that the registration would license the Applicant to conduct his business as a mechanical engineer, in the wider sense, without being restricted in any way to limiting his professional activities in the area of hydraulic engineering and fire protection. Mr Woods submitted that registration as a mechanical engineer would allow the Applicant to operate as a registered building practitioner within any of the areas of study falling within the discipline of a mechanical engineer, even though his qualifications, training and experience do not cover fields of study outside his professional experience.
5. By contrast, the Applicant contends that he has no intention of straying into areas of engineering other than those areas that he currently works in. He said that the Tribunal can be confident of that not occurring because he would not be able to obtain professional indemnity insurance in areas of engineering, other than those areas concerning hydraulic engineering and fire protection. The Applicant further contends that no graduate engineer would have a complete understanding of all areas of study comprising a degree course and it is quite common for graduates to stream into a particular field of work, such as hydraulic engineering and fire protection, without ever venturing into other fields of mechanical engineering.
6. We accept that it may well be common practice for graduate mechanical engineers to stream into a particular area of mechanical engineering and never venture into other areas within that discipline. However, we are of the view that that argument is too simplistic. As pointed out by Mr Maroulis, having an engineering degree allows him to think in engineering terms, such that he reverts back to first engineering principles, when confronted with an unusual situation. In our view, having that broader knowledge base, even if not used on a day-to-day basis, cannot be discounted as having no utility in the practice of a mechanical engineer. Indeed, the National Engineering Registration Board describes the areas of practice within the discipline of mechanical engineering as:

Mechanical Engineering is concerned with design, development, research, evaluation, manufacture, installation, testing, operation, maintenance and management of machines, mechanical and mechatronic systems automated systems and robotic devices, thermodynamic and combustion systems, fluid and thermal energy systems, materials and manufacturing equipment and process plant and materials handling systems. This is applied to manufacturing, land, sea and air transportation, electricity generation, mining, minerals and metals processing, food, agricultural and forest products processing, thermal and environmental control systems in buildings and industry, refrigeration and air-conditioning systems. Applicants must have experience in the safety aspects of design and/or operation of machines, plant, systems or processes and with noise, airborne and waterborne emission controls to reduce environmental impact.

1. Given the above, it is our view that the Applicant's qualifications and experience fall short of covering the areas of study comprising a mechanical engineering degree, as set out above.

1. It is beyond doubt that the proper design and construction of fire protection systems is fundamental to the protection, safety and health of people who use buildings and places of public entertainment. It is an objective of the Act to ensure that regulation of the building industry achieves that outcome.
2. The legislature in this State has identified certain categories of building practitioner registration and has prescribed what qualifications are required in order to qualify for registration. In the absence of there being a specific category of building practitioner concerned with hydraulic engineering and fire protection building services, registration in the Applicant's field of work can only be obtained if the Applicant can demonstrate that he has equivalent qualifications to that prescribed under the Regulations for a mechanical engineer. On his own admission, he does not have the experience or qualifications which are equivalent to all of the fields of study, which comprise a degree in mechanical engineering. The evidence of Dr Price, corroborated by Mr Maroulis, is that the area of work undertaken by the Applicant represents only a very small percentage of the course load undertaken in a mechanical engineering degree.
3. That being the case, we are of the view that legislature simply does not allow the Applicant to be registered as a mechanical engineer. The fact that persons with similar qualifications and experience to the Applicant may have been registered in the class of mechanical engineer historically is irrelevant and certainly not binding on either the BPB or the Tribunal sitting in its review jurisdiction. Each case must be assessed on its merits. In this case, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Applicant has equivalent qualifications to holding a degree in mechanical engineering. That finding, of itself, leads to the inexorable conclusion that the decision of the BPB must be affirmed.
4. Consequently, orders will be made affirming the determination of the BPB that the Applicant's application for registration as a mechanical engineer is refused. In making that finding, the Tribunal acknowledges and accepts the evidence of Mr Maroulis and Mr Varveris that the Applicant is highly proficient and knowledgeable in the area of hydraulic engineering and fire protection building services and that the Tribunal's finding is not to be construed as impugning that evidence.

[1] Building Act 1993 (first print).

[2] See further Shi v Migration Agents Registrations Authority (2008) 235 CLR 287 at [247] per Kiefel J; and Collector of Customs (NSW) v Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd [1979] FCA 21; (1979) 24 ALR 307 at 335 per Smithers J.