The decision of the Building Practitioners Board dated 14 August 2013, refusing the Applicant's application for registration as a domestic builder (unlimited), is affirmed.

1. Mr Wenbo Liu applies for review of a decision made by the Building Practitioners Board ('BPB' or 'Board') to refuse him registration as a domestic builder (unlimited) under s 170(2) of the Building Act 1993 ('the Building Act').

1. On 10 April 2013 Mr Liu was registered as a building practitioner in the class domestic builder (manager) ('DB-M') pursuant to s 170 of the Building Act.
2. On the same day Mr Liu submitted an application for registration as a building practitioner in the class domestic builder (unlimited) ('DB-U'). The application was based on the same documents which had formed the basis of Mr Liu's application to be registered as a DB-M.
3. Between the date of the application and August 2013 Mr Liu provided the BPB with additional information.
4. On 17 May 2013 Mr Liu undertook a computer based assessment.
5. On 7 August 2013 Mr Liu was assessed in an interview by Mr George Stefanidis in which Mr Stefanidis formed the view that Mr Liu lacked "the relevant 3 years of practical experience that is required of a DBU". Mr Stefanidis outlined further experience required by Mr Liu for registration as a DB-U.
6. On 14 August 2013 the BPB notified Mr Liu by letter of its decision to refuse him registration in the category of DB-U on the basis that:

The Board found that you do not hold the prescribed qualifications under section 170 of the Building Act 1993 (the Act) Division 1, Part 11 and as described in Schedule 7 of the Building Regulations 2006.

1. On 9 September 2013 Mr Liu lodged this application for review on the following grounds:
   1. I got the approval of domestic builder-manager registration issued by BPB on 15th Apr.2013 (letter as attached) which means BPB agreed that I met and held the domestic builder registration qualification prescribed under section 170 of the Building Act 1993 Division, Part 11 and as prescribed in Schedule 7 of the Building Reg 2006. How come after half a year, another assessor from BPB found I did not hold qualification as require by the same law when I applied for Domestic builder unlimited registration since no amendment or alteration has been introduced to the Building Act and Building Reg during the less than half a year period.
   2. BPB permitted me to have sit various tests including the computer based test, error check and face to face interview for domestic building unlimited registration only after they found that I am eligible for such test, that means, only in the circumstances that they found that I am holding the domestic building registration and meet the law requirements after they checked and reviewed my application documents. However my assessor Mr George in the process of the face to face interview told me before the test started that he would not allow me to pass even if I got hundred percent correct in all the questions he would question because he found that I did not hold registration qualification. When I asked him why I was allowed to sit such test and other previous tests since I am not eligible to attend it and waste his and my time. Even he himself said that he did not understand it either. So the refusal is absolutely an outcome of different understandings of law requirement by different assessors from BPB. But I am the victim.
   3. I am holding the qualifications for domestic builder unlimited application as prescribed in the Building Act and Building Reg. I have Certificate III Building and Construction issued by Holmesglen Tafe (as attached) and nearly ten years experience in the building and construction industry. [sic]
2. Mr Liu did not submit any further documents in respect of this application to review, despite a direction from the Tribunal to do so by 8 September 2014. However, at the hearing on 17 November Mr Liu tendered five building permits[1] which he contended demonstrate further relevant experience.
3. Mr Liu's failure to provide further documentation as ordered has not assisted him in this proceeding. For example, when cross-examining Ms Georgia McKay, the expert witness building consultant who gave evidence for the BPB, Mr Liu remarked that he wished he had provided photographs of some of his work. Another example is that Mr Liu cross-examined Ms McKay as to the complexity of finishing the work of other builders. Her answer was that this is complex work, but she did not have the benefit of knowing what he had done, particularly in dealing with any problems encountered.

1. It is convenient to deal with the first of Mr Liu's grounds for review briefly. This is the point raised at paragraph 2 of the grounds for review referred to above where it is said by Mr Liu that "Mr George in the process of the face to face interview told me before the test started that he would not allow me to pass even if I got hundred percent correct in all the questions".
2. This was a complaint made consistently by Mr Liu. The BPB's statement pursuant to s 49 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (" the VCAT Act") at paragraph 13 refers to a letter Mr Liu wrote on 8 July 2013 to the Registrar of the BPB complaining about the assessor's conduct during the face to face assessment, namely that the assessor had reached a "conclusion ...before the test." Mr Liu made a similar complaint in opening his application for review at the hearing.
3. There is no need for the Tribunal to spend substantial time on this issue. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to review the decision of the BPB arises under s 182A of the Building Act. Under s 51(1)(a) of the VCAT Act the Tribunal in exercising its review jurisdiction has all the functions of the decision- maker. In other words, the nature of the review is a hearing de novo. In this context a de novo hearing is one from the beginning; as if the BPB decision had not been made. Accordingly, the conduct of the assessor is not relevant to the decision of the Tribunal.

The position of the BPB to the application to review

1. From the BPB's statement of issues and legal contentions it appears that the BPB's position regarding Mr Liu's application is, apart from the fact that he misconstrues the de novo nature of this appeal, that:
   • (a) Mr Liu does not hold the prescribed qualifications in the class of DB-U for the purposes of s170(1)(b)(i) of the Building Act and regulation 1503/Schedule 7, item 15(a) and (b) of the Building Regulations 2006 ("the Building Regulations")
   • (b) After examination Mr Liu was unable to satisfy the BPB that it should certify that he has adequate knowledge and experience to carry out, manage or arrange to carry out all components of domestic building work, for the purposes of s 170(1)(b)(i) of the Building Act and regulation 1503/Schedule 7, item 15(c) of the Building Regulations; and
   • (c) Mr Liu does not hold a qualification which alone or together with other qualifications or experience is equivalent to the prescribed qualifications for the purposes of s 170(1)(b)(ii) of the Building Act.

The registration scheme under the Building Act

1. Before dealing with the parties' submissions and evidence in detail, it is useful to consider the nature and purpose of the scheme for registration of building practitioners in Victoria established by the Building Act.
2. By way of introduction to this topic I respectfully adopt what was said by Senior Member Riegler in La Rocca v Building Practitioners Board (Review and Regulation) [2014] VCAT 795 (18 June 2014):

Registration of building practitioners has been governed by the Act since late 1993. Prior to that date, building practitioners were not required to be registered, although de facto registration was effected through industry bodies, such as the Master Builders Association and Housing Industry Association, in addition to various legislative schemes, which restricted eligibility to practise in some areas of the building industry.

The Act and the regulations made thereunder introduced a legislative framework for the registration of persons working within the Victorian building industry. It further mandated for compulsory professional indemnity insurance as a prerequisite for registration of professionals. The purpose of this far-reaching reform was expressed in the objectives of the Act set out under s 4:

(a) to establish, maintain and improve standards of the construction and maintenance of buildings;

(e) to provide an efficient and effective system for ensuring building and occupancy permits and administering and enforcing related building and safety matters and resolving building disputes;

(g) to reform aspects of the law relating to legal liability in relation to building matters_;_

(h) to aid the achievement of an efficient and competitive building industry.

Since its commencement in December 1993, the Act has received a number of amendments. However, its objective in regulating building practitioners remains firm. In particular, the Building Regulations 2006 ('the Regulations') prescribe various categories of building practitioners, which include domestic builders, commercial builders, building surveyors, draftspersons and engineers, amongst others.

Within these categories, subcategories of registration may exist. For example, the category of builder is divided into various subcategories known as classes, which include domestic builder unlimited; domestic builder - manager; demolisher (low rise buildings); commercial builder (unlimited); commercial builder (limited); etc. The Act further prescribes prerequisite qualifications in order to attain registration in that category and class of registration.

1. This appeal of course is concerned with the requirements for registration in the class of DB-U.

Requirements for registration in the class of DB-U.

1. The prescribed qualifications in respect of each of the categories and classes of building practitioner are set out in Schedule 7 of the Building Regulations.
2. The prescribed qualifications for registration in the class of DB-U in the category of builder are:

(i) a degree, diploma or associate diploma of building from a university approved and authorised, or TAFE institute that is registered, under Part 4.3 of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 to conduct an accredited course leading to that award; and

(ii) 3 years of practical experience to the satisfaction of the Board; or

(i) successful completion of the "Course in Builder Registration (BPB)" accredited under the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 ; and

(ii) 3 years of practical experience to the satisfaction of the Board; or

(c) a certificate issued by the Board, after examination of the applicant, certifying that the applicant has adequate knowledge and experience to carry out, manage or arrange to carry out all components of domestic building work."

1. In S 169 of the Building Act the procedure by which a person may apply to the BPB for registration as a building practitioner is established.
2. It is mandatory under s 170 of the Building Act for the BPB to register an applicant in each category or class applied for if it is satisfied that the applicant:

(a) has complied with section 169; and

(i) holds an appropriate prescribed qualification; or

(ii) holds a qualification that the Board considers is, either alone or together with any further certificate, authority, experience or examination equivalent to a prescribed qualification; and

(d) has complied with any other condition prescribed for registration in that category or class.

1. Section 170(5) of the Building Act defines 'qualification' as meaning:

... any degree, diploma, certificate, accreditation, authority, training, experience or examination (whether obtained inside or outside Victoria).

1. Under s 182A of the Building Act the Tribunal is empowered to hear any review of a decision of the BPB. As noted, any such review is by way of a hearing de novo. Accordingly, Mr Liu or the BPB are each entitled to rely upon additional material at the review hearing which was not before the BPB at the time it made its original decision.
2. Section 51(2) of the VCAT Act then provides:

(2) In determining a proceeding for review of a decision the Tribunal may, by order -

(c) set aside the decision under review and make another decision in substitution for it; or

(d) set aside the decision under review and remit the matter for re-consideration by the decision-maker in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal

1. On behalf of the BPB Mr Woods of Counsel acknowledged Mr Liu had done well in his two written exams. However Mr Woods stated that it was the BPB's position that in order to be registered as a DB-U an applicant must have relevant domestic experience gained under the supervision of a registered building practitioner rather than under a developer. That experience should be "hands on, on site and cover the whole scope of work".
2. After referring to the s 49 statement submitted by the BPB it was acknowledged that Mr Liu had "extensive experience as a carpenter in framing" and that the BPB's concern was with the lack of other relevant experience.
3. Mr Liu was then invited to give his evidence of new relevant experience which had been gained in the period since he had been assessed by Mr Stefanidis in August 2013.

1. Mr Liu tendered five building permits which are discussed further, at paragraphs 55 to 63. These permits had been issued to Mr Liu in the past twelve months and he used them in an endeavour to convince the Tribunal that since the time of the BPB's rejection of his application to be registered as a DB-U in August 2013 he had gained sufficient relevant experience for the Tribunal to approve his application.
2. During cross-examination of Mr Liu, Mr Woods asked if Mr Liu understood the BPB's position, which was that Mr Liu lacked experience outside framing and carpentry, giving the example of water-proofing. Mr Liu said that he had undertaken a range of work since 2009, but admitted that he did not have experience in water-proofing.

1. The BPB relied on evidence from Ms McKay and tendered her report dated 26 September 2014.
2. Mr Liu contested the legitimacy of Ms McKay's report, asserting that Ms McKay was not qualified to write such a report as she was not a building inspector. I rejected this contention during the hearing and allowed the report into evidence. Having regard to Ms McKay's curriculum vitae I am satisfied that she had the necessary knowledge and experience to give the expert evidence she gave.
3. In her report, Ms McKay listed eight questions she had been asked by the BPB and then proceeded to answer each of them. Ms McKay's evidence can be summarised as follows.
4. Question 1 related to Mr Liu's qualifications. Ms McKay noted that Mr Liu held Certificate IV in Building & Construction (Building) from Holmesglen Institute.
5. Question 2 was whether for the purposes of s 170 of the Building Act Mr Liu's qualification is a prescribed qualification for the category of builder, class of DB-U.
6. In Ms McKay's opinion Mr Liu's qualification does not meet the prescribed requirements, as the Certificate IV in Building & Construction (Building) is not the same thing as a degree, diploma or associate diploma.
7. In question 3 Ms McKay was asked to summarise Mr Liu's experience that is relevant to domestic building work.
8. In Ms McKay's opinion Mr Liu's experience relevant to domestic building work in summary includes:
   • Completion of Certificate IV in Building & Construction (Building)
   • 5 years work experience in residential projects in China as a site Supervisor.
   • 2 years work experience in Australia on residential projects in which Mr Liu undertook frame, lock up and fix along with smaller carpentry jobs.
   • 3.5 years work experience in Australia running his own contract carpentry business which undertook frame, lock up and fix contracts. The business also undertook building maintenance for real estate agents and the construction of decks, pergolas, fences, bathrooms and kitchen renovations.
9. In question 4 Ms McKay was asked what she considered to be fundamental areas of domestic building work. Ms McKay listed 21 core competencies. These are referred to below, together with Ms McKay's assessment of Mr Liu's skill and experience in each area of competence.
10. Question 5 sought Ms McKay's opinion, having regard to the objectives of the Building Act 1993 (in s 4) which include "to protect the safety and health of people who use buildings and places of public entertainment," what level of experience in the fundamental areas of domestic building work, or in any other areas relevant to the role of a DB-U should a practitioner registered in this area possess?
11. Having set out the objectives of Building Act 1993 as set out in s 4, Ms McKay said:

I would consider that a person applying to be registered in the category of Domestic Builder (Unlimited) would have experience on residential projects in all aspects of the process of building or renovating a house. Ideally the experience should be gained by working, for or under, the supervision of a registered builder as a Supervisor or Site Manager. Some experience should be demonstrated in all the fundamental areas of domestic building work as outlined in my response to question 4 above.

I would not consider the completion of a training course or courses alone, adequate experience to gain registration in this capacity. The building industry is one with many variables and a vast array of products. These are learnt through practical application.

The person seeking registration should be able to demonstrate technical knowledge across all aspects of domestic building work. Or they must know how to source further technical information and what standards are to be met. They must have the experience to know the appropriate contract to use for both a head contract and sub contract agreement. They should be able to demonstrate experience administering contracts.

They must have experience in managing trades on site and inspecting works during construction and at completion. They should have worked on projects from start to finish and have experience working directly with clients. They should have experience in the pricing of building works and the cost controls necessary on the residential building project and the ability to do cashflow projections.

This experience should have been gained in the residential building sector. A period of three years allows a person to work through several projects in their entirety from the initial design, specification, estimation, construction through to completion. It allows a person to experience the building of different types of homes and exposure to a range of clients. A three year period allows a person to learn about different building materials and methods of construction and the best ways to manage a project.

1. Question 6 asked Ms Mckay, having regard to the attached materials including the BPB's s 49 statement and Mr Liu's application and assessment results, whether she considered that Mr Liu had demonstrated adequate knowledge and experience in the fundamental areas of domestic building work and any other relevant areas.
2. In response Ms McKay said that she had read the s 49 statement and assessed Mr Liu against the areas she had outlined (in answer to question 3) as fundamental to domestic building work. (Her assessment is discussed in more detail below at paragraphs 47-49.)
3. In question 7, Ms McKay was asked whether in her opinion, having regard to the attached[2] material, Mr Liu possesses the required knowledge and experience required to meet the prescribed qualifications?
4. Ms McKay's opinion was that she did not believe Mr Liu had adequate practical experience and knowledge to be registered in the category of DB-U. Apart from the lack of a relevant qualification, she opined that Mr Liu had demonstrated a lack of experience in some relevant and fundamental areas of domestic building. Mr Liu has also demonstrated a lack of knowledge in common construction methods and techniques as demonstrated by his interview with Mr Stefanidis and his completion of the two drawing exercises.
5. Finally, in question 8, Ms McKay was asked whether the BPB or the Tribunal should certify that Mr Liu has adequate knowledge and experience to carry out, manage or arrange to carry out all components of domestic building work.
6. Ms McKay answered in the negative, citing Mr Liu's lack of relevant experience or knowledge to be registered as a DB-U, noting that this role is "demanding and carries great responsibility" and "is also an area that is constantly changing with materials, standards and codes being updated". Ms McKay also opined that a DB-U "must possess a wide range of skills and the ability to provide a high level of workmanship in his own work and those of any contractors he may employ."

Ms McKay's assessment of Mr Liu's skills and experience

1. Ms McKay's assessed Mr Liu positively in the following ten out of the twenty one core competencies she had identified as described by her:

1. An ability to read and interpret building plans. 2. Efficient and timely ordering of building materials. 3. An ability to issue clear directions and instructions.

1. An ability to keep accurate records to track contracts, cost control methods, payments and outstanding monies.

1. An understanding of safe work practices and essential requirements for workers on any building site. 2. An understanding of Provisional Sums and Prime Cost items and how they should be administered. 3. An understanding of the requirements of the building contract. 4. An understanding of when a building permit must be obtained and when mandatory building inspections are required. 5. How the Building and Construction Security of Payment Act 2002 applies. 6. Maintain a current registration with the BPB.

I accept her assessment of these core competencies.

1. Ms McKay's assessed Mr Liu negatively in the remaining 11 of 21 core competencies she had identified. However, in her oral evidence at the hearing she said that having considered the further experience acquired by Mr Liu in performing the works covered by the five building permits he had submitted in his evidence, she was satisfied that he was now competent in the following two further areas:
   1. Supervision of tradespeople

In evidence in chief Ms McKay said she had changed her view regarding this item because she considered that Mr Liu was taking this function seriously and demonstrated a good understanding of his responsibilities.

1. An ability to understand and incorporate town planning conditions, soil reports, energy rating reports and other specialist reports into the contract documents.

I also accept her assessment of these core competencies.

1. The upshot, after allowing for these concessions by Ms McKay regarding her assessment of Mr Liu's abilities, is that she still considers Mr Liu lacks the relevant level of competency in the following 9 core areas for the following summarised reasons:
   1. An ability to read, understand and compile building specifications

[Mr Liu's] work history shows he has been employed as a carpenter and on the tools and as such, this work experience would not have provided exposure or experience with domestic building specifications.

1. An ability to prepare scope of works for various trades

[Mr Liu] has worked as a carpenter and on the tools and this work experience does not indicate an exposure or experience with the preparation of domestic building trades scope of works. The applicant's ability was not further tested or assessed by the Building Practitioners BPB.

1. Good working knowledge of construction methods and techniques

[Mr Liu] has primarily worked as a contract carpenter. He has limited experience with the other trades involved in a building project. On the 7 August 2013 he attended an interview with Mr Stefanidis. At this time he was asked to complete two drawings.

On one drawing he was asked to identify faults on the drawing. Some critical items were not identified. [He] noted that Oregon fascia should be changed to treated pine when Oregon is acceptable and treated pine not commonly used on fascias. He did not identify that the sub floor clearance was inadequate at 150mm high. He did not identify that blow in insulation is not commonly used to insulate a wall cavity. In new construction a batt would be installed in this location.

The other drawing was missing some details that the applicant was asked to fill in. He failed to identify the soffit eave lining details, the missing window trimmer and bottom plate of the timber frame. He did not identify the need for an infill above the window.

1. A good working knowledge of the Building Code of Australia and Australian standards relating to residential building works.

As a contract carpenter [Mr Liu] would have some working knowledge of AS1684 Residential Timber framing code. This is regularly referenced on drawings. He has not demonstrated work experience using any of the other standards.

The course he has completed would have required him to use some of the other building standards.

His assessment with Mr Stefanidis on 7 August 2013 demonstrated his lack of knowledge in the application of building standards and tolerances.

1. Scheduling and co-ordination of building trades and the flow of work in a residential building project.

[Mr Liu] has worked as a sub contract carpenter for other builders and renovation companies and in this role would not have been scheduling and co-ordinating other trades. He has been self employed and undertaken jobs on his own. In undertaking kitchen and bathroom renovations he would have had to co-ordinate some other trades involved in these works. I consider this is limited experience to the scheduling and co-ordination required to build a house.

His study for the Certificate IV Building and Construction (Building) includes programming and planning of building works. In the test conducted by Mr Stefanidis he did not provide correct answers when questioned on site responsibilities of various personnel at a worksite or the role of the Site Manager and supervisors. Refer page 432 of [BPB's Tribunal Book].

1. An understanding of the best way to package up the works of various trades to carry out certain aspects of the work.

[Mr Liu] has not demonstrated experience with the assembling of trade packages for an entire job. He has only carried out some aspects of work involved in a residential project.

1. An ability to estimate building costs and knowledge of trade rates and costings

[Mr Liu] has work experience as a carpentry contractor and has been self employed. He would have a limited working knowledge of costs and rates. He has only prepared quotes for smaller projects.

However this is not the same as preparing a cost estimate for a larger job. He has not demonstrated work experience in the pricing of a larger job.

In my opinion his ability to prepare cost estimates was not really tested by the BPB. He submitted costings that appeared to have been prepared as part of a course assessment. To prepare accurate cost estimates requires a good working knowledge of domestic construction and experience with trade rates. Otherwise there is a risk of under pricing a job. There are so many variables in building.

The Certificate IV Building and Construction (Building) has estimation in its course content.

He is computer literate which is a good skill and allows more accurate cost control and better financial management of projects.

1. Good technical knowledge and an understanding of what is good workmanship and when works are defective. Carry out quality control.

[Mr Liu's] work experience was gained in domestic building works as a carpentry contractor. He has some supervision experience in China and some 8 months experience in Australia. This supervision was done for a developer and not a licensed builder.

Given his experience in the building industry to date, I do not consider that he would have the technical knowledge or experience across all the trades engaged in a residential project, to assess the quality of workmanship or have a good working knowledge of standards and tolerances.

1. Protection works notices and their requirements.

[Mr Liu] has not demonstrated work experience with these requirements. He has covered this topic in his studies but I would consider that practical experience is necessary in this often very complicated and emotion fuelled area.

1. Ms McKay emphasised the importance of Mr Liu obtaining experience under the supervision of a DB-U. She gave as an example working for a domestic building company. This is not necessarily the only way Mr Liu can gain the necessary experience. When asked what Mr Liu needed to do to gain the necessary experience, Ms McKay said she thought he needed one more year of experience and the completion of all the projects referred to below.
2. I have reviewed the evidence of Ms McKay which I refer to again below. I have also had regard to the five new building permits put in evidence at the hearing by Mr Liu.

1. With respect to the core competency D above, under cross-examination Mr Liu agreed that he had not reported on the items marked in red on the BPB's exhibit B8 - a construction drawing exercise that requires the examinee to find elements that are missing or defective. However Mr Liu said he pointed out the structural issues. He added that it is not necessary to point out a missing top or bottom plate because they would never be missed in construction.
2. I am not satisfied that this is an adequate explanation. Nevertheless, I accept Mr Liu's submission that he cannot be expected to achieve a 100% score in every exam - a score I note Mr Liu did achieve for an on-line exam.
3. I accept Ms McKay's statement in evidence in chief that it is not necessary to get 100%, particularly concerning unusual materials, but it is necessary for a DB-U to have general knowledge of everything necessary to build a home.

1. I find that the permit issued in relation to the swimming pool in Kew (permit BSU 1126), did not advance Mr Liu's experience significantly. When asked about it, Mr Liu clarified that it related to a decking over the pool, and was thus an example of further carpentry experience, the only novel aspect of which was protection of the existing swimming pool.

1. I also find that the work covered by permit BS-L 39431.0039, which related to the construction of a verandah and deck in Glen Waverley, fell into the same category.

1. The project in Burwood (permit BS-U 1093/201201959/0) was more significant as it involved the construction of units and garages. The project was clearly substantial having a contract sum of $846,871. However, in evidence Mr Liu made it clear that he did not have the carriage throughout. Rather, he had taken over the project from a building company which failed. At the date of the hearing the work was not yet complete. Mr Liu said it was "in its last stage" with about two months of work remaining.
2. His evidence in respect of this project illuminated a fatal flaw in Mr Liu's application, which is that he fails to appreciate the fundamental distinction between registration as a building practitioner in the class DB-M and registration as a building practitioner in the class DB-U. Under cross-examination Mr Liu said he thought the qualifications for DB-M and DB-U are similar. As a building practitioner in the class DB-M Mr Liu is required to engage to perform work on the projects he is managing only building practitioners who carry the appropriate registration for their trade.
3. In answer to Mr Liu's question in cross-examination, Ms McKay said that where a trade does not have specific registration (such as plasterers and painters), the DB-M should engage a DB-Q (sundry works) or DB-U to undertake these tasks. It was not at all clear Mr Liu was only using registered practitioners.

1. In Point Cook, Mr Liu had taken over the construction of a dwelling under permit BSU 1082/2010/8906/0, when the builder who had commenced the project failed financially. It was clear that this project had presented challenges as the brick piers in the garage had issues and he could not find, after taking possession of the site, where the gas pipe and storm water drain had been placed. They had, it turned out, been put by the plumber in the wrong place.
2. I accept that this project would have contributed to Mr Liu's experience I accept Ms McKay's evidence that taking over an incomplete job requires significant attention to detail.

1. The final project referred to by Mr Liu was in Ferntree Gully, covered by permit 1550/20140111/0. This project involved the construction by Mr Liu of two single storey brick veneer units and garages. This experience was clearly relevant. This is, as I understand it, the closest that Mr Liu has come to managing a project from start to finish on his own but even here he has not yet achieved that goal. The project is still underway and has not been completed.
2. Under cross-examination Mr Liu said that he has a sub-contractor with DB-U registration, but this person is under Mr Liu's supervision and is not assisting Mr Liu with supervision of the whole job.

1. As noted, s 170(1)(b) of the Building Act provides) that the Board must register an applicant in a category or class applied for if, in addition to meeting the other criteria set out in s 170, the applicant either-

(i) holds an appropriate prescribed qualification; or

(ii) holds a qualification that the Board considers is, either alone or together with any further certificate, authority, experience or examination equivalent to a prescribed qualification.

1. I find that Mr Liu's Certificate IV in Building and Construction (Holmesglen Institute of TAFE) is not equivalent to either of the prescribed qualifications referred to in schedule 7 of the Building Regulations at paragraphs 15(a) or 15(b), namely:

(a) a degree, diploma or associate diploma of building from a university approved and authorised, or TAFE institute that is registered, under Part 4.3 of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 to conduct an accredited course leading to that award and three years of practical experience to the satisfaction of the board; or

(b) successful completion of the "Course in Builder Registration (BPB)" accredited under the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 and three years of practical experience to the satisfaction of the board.

1. Further, I note that the BPB did not allow Mr Liu to pass through the remaining gateway for registration contained in schedule 7 paragraph 15 (c), namely a certificate issued by the BPB, after examination of Mr Liu, certifying that Mr Liu has adequate knowledge and experience to carry out, manage or arrange to carry out all components of domestic building work.
2. For the above reasons I am also not prepared to issue a certificate under schedule 7 paragraph 15(c ).
3. Accordingly, Mr Liu's only option is to convince the Tribunal that for the purposes of s 170(1)(b)(ii) of the Building Act he holds a qualification that the BPB considers is, either alone or together with any further certificate, authority, experience or examination, equivalent to a prescribed qualification.
4. Turning to Ms McKay's evidence first, I find with one proviso that her list of the 21 core competencies is a useful tool for the assessment of an application for registration in the class of DB-U.
5. The proviso is that the list did not include knowledge of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995. I consider knowledge of this Act is an essential requirement for registration in the class of DB-U.
6. This is not a merely theoretical observation as in the course of Mr Liu's evidence I asked him whether the contract under which he had taken over the work of another builder in Point Cook complied with s 31 of the _Domestic Building Contracts A_ct. He evaded the question which raised in my mind a doubt as to whether he understood the importance of the issue.
7. I have set out the substance of Ms McKay's reasons for finding that Mr Liu lacked the relevant level of skill or experience in nine areas of competency relevant identified by Ms McKay which I accept are relevant to Mr Liu's application for registration in the class of DB-U.
8. I accept as reasonable Mr Woods' submission that at the time of the hearing Mr Liu needed a further year of experience, taking a project from start to finish, with the assistance of a DB-U qualified mentor. I note that a DB-U can work for a DB-M, however it is important that the DB-M have regard to the DB-U's advice and assistance.
9. I find that on the basis of these assessments, Ms McKay's conclusion that Mr Liu should not be certified as possessing adequate knowledge and experience to carry out, manage or arrange to carry out all components of domestic building work, was justified.
10. Accordingly, Mr Liu has failed to convince me that for the purposes of s170(1)(b)(ii) of the Building Act he holds a qualification that the BPB considers is, either alone or together with any further certificate, authority, experience or examination, equivalent to a prescribed qualification.
11. For these reasons the application for review fails and the decision of the BPB is affirmed.

[2] The material that was attached to the BPB's instructions to Ms McKay.