Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts), on behalf of the Minister for Building Issues: I move, That the Architects Bill be now read a second time. I would like to acknowledge the timely and thorough consideration that the Government Administration Committee has given to the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the submitters who made both written and oral submissions. This bill repeals the Architects Act, and introduces a modern regulatory framework for architects. It is a companion measure to the Building Act, which reinforces the importance of each element of the building process, and it is an important component in the wider review of the regulatory framework for the building industry. A debt of gratitude is owed to the honourable Lianne Dalziel, who introduced the bill into the House, and to the Hon Margaret Wilson.

My colleague Lianne Dalziel has spoken in this House before about the initiatives that are contained in this bill. The bill strengthens the regulatory framework and has a strong focus on consumer protection. It does that by introducing both initial and ongoing competency testing for registered persons, by establishing a public register that includes details of disciplinary action taken against a registered person in the last 3 years, by providing people with the information they need in order to choose a competent, registered architect, and by introducing meaningful reinforcement and sanctions provisions.

The select committee has considered the bill and reported back to the House. It has supported the key principles behind the bill and recommended some amendments to better reflect the policy intent behind the proposals. The main changes from the committee include: an amendment to increase the maximum fines for breaches by registered persons to $10,000, so as to provide a more effective deterrent to offending; an amendment to increase the maximum fines for persons claiming to be registered, when that is not the case, to $10,000 in order to prevent the registration system from being undermined; an amendment to enable the registration board to undertake any function delegated to it under any other enactment, so as to increase flexibility and allow better integration with the Building Act; and an amendment to replace protection of the title “architect” with protection for “registered architect”. Consistent with that, the committee has recommended a number of consequential amendments, including a change to the title of the bill and a change to the name of the registration board.

Following the release of the committee’s report, concern has been raised regarding the appropriate use of the title “architect” in relation to building design. I signal to the House that I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper to address those concerns. As currently drafted, the bill requires the registration board to be established on 1 July 2004. That date is no longer appropriate. The Supplementary Order Paper will also ensure that time is provided for the establishment of the board.

I find it interesting that the National Party opposes the establishment of the registration board and has recommended, instead, that the New Zealand Institute of Architects undertake registration. That institute is a voluntary industry organisation, and has no statutory role under the bill. As my colleague the honourable Lianne Dalziel said in her first reading speech on the bill, the current registration board, the Architects Education and Registration Board, and the New Zealand Institute of Architects were closely involved in the development of the bill, and it fits with their desire to modernise the regulation of the occupation.

In conclusion, this bill is an integral element of the wider review of the building legislation of 1991 and of the inputs into the building process, and is necessary to ensure that buildings are designed right first time. I wish to thank the members of the select committee for their work in considering this bill, and to acknowledge the contributions of those who provided submissions. I commend this bill, as reported back from the select committee, to the House.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour—[Interruption]

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : I can understand your haste in wanting to move on, Madam Speaker, but there are a few comments the National Party wishes to make, particularly in response to the Minister. Before I do that, I welcome the newest member of Parliament, Ms Soper, whom I have not yet had a chance to acknowledge. I hope her time in this place, although it will be brief, will be enjoyable. Perhaps she may learn some lessons from her senior colleague the honourable John Tamihere on how to get promoted in this place, and I wish her luck with the process.

I come back to the Architects Bill, and I say to the Minister who has just finished his speech, Rick Barker, that the reason why the National Party has suggested self-regulation rather than Government-imposed regulation is that more often than not that brings about the best outcome for all concerned. As the Minister said in his opening comments, the whole process started with the Building Bill. We can see now what a circus that legislation has turned into, what a mess the Government has made of it, and how it has had no effect whatsoever on resolving the problems that came from the leaky houses situation we have in New Zealand because of the circus the Government created. With regard to the whole argument around whether architects should be described as “registered architects” or just “architects”, it is our view—and always has been—that the best body to administer that regulation is the group itself, whose members have the expertise, the knowledge, and the desire to see the right outcome.

Architects were themselves caught up in the whole debate around leaky homes. The inquiries that took place into that issue suggested that the failures were systemic, from design—which, of course, is the area where architects are involved—right through to monolithic cladding and untreated timber, and the list goes on and on. Architects themselves were quite anxious to protect their brand, and so they should be. Why should the Government—and this is the question that the Minister did not answer—step in and use a mighty big sledgehammer to crack a very small nut? Therefore, National believes the regulation that the Minister is suggesting we should have supported is not necessary.

This bill is very good legislation in the sense that it is simple, it protects the brand “registered architect”, and it gives architects the legislative framework that they have decided would be desirable. For that reason, the National Party will support the bill going forward. I know that my colleague Lindsay Tisch has studied this issue substantially, and he will bring forward a recommended change to the bill in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper. I am sure that the House, once it has fully studied that Supplementary Order Paper, will accept that it is very good, and that it will pass, rather than the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper. The numbers in support of National’s Supplementary Order Paper are getting stronger all the time. The Government should take note of that—and it should certainly take note of what Mr Tisch has to say about that—and pass Mr Tisch’s Supplementary Order Paper, which the National Party will be voting for.

I say also to the Minister that it would be helpful if, in his contributions through the debate—if he or any other Labour member is prepared to make another contribution—he would explain to architects why the Government believes that they are not qualified to decide how to regulate themselves. As I recall matters, architects themselves stated in their submissions that the best way to get the outcome the Government wanted was not to use a heavy hand—although the Government Administration Committee, as the Minister rightly said, suggested that increases in the fines should take place. There are now fines of up to $10,000 for a variety of offences—up from $5,000—and a range of other fines in the legislation. We think that that is the right approach. The Minister should explain to the industry why he thinks that his department, or another Government department, is in a much better position than architects, or would have much more knowledge than them, so as to dictate to that group what it should or should not do with regard to the registration of the industry.

Hon Rick Barker: Disgraceful.

SHANE ARDERN: It is a fair question, and the Minister seems to have a view on it. I would like the Minister to explain to us why that is so. There is no evidence to support that approach in most of those cases.

If we look at the Building Act, we see the mess that it has turned into. When central government dictates what “Joe Hard-worker”—the builder with the ute, the dog, and the radio—can do, or even that if “Joe Hard-worker”, as most hard-working Kiwis do, buys a run-down house, does it up himself on the weekend, and allows it to become part of his growth plan in terms of equity, it can dictate the way he must do that, and that he must pay this expert and that expert to give him advice on how to do it, then we end up with the exact opposite of the outcome we set out to try to achieve. It would be good if the Minister could enlighten the House as to how many leaky houses now coming through the inquiry that was set up by the Government are homes that have been renovated by the home-handyman kind of builder. Perhaps in the Minister’s seat of Tukituki there may be one. I have heard of none; I have seen none. I have asked for evidence that “Joe Hard-worker” and “Bob the builder”, with their ute, dog, and radio, caused that problem, and I have seen none. I have seen absolutely no evidence to back that claim up. So I ask the Minister to take a call. I may be proven wrong, but I have not been able to find one single case that could substantiate that argument.

In the case of architects, there are good ones, bad ones, registered ones, and those who use the title of “architect” but who are not registered. Just like hiring or not hiring a master builder, that is something the consumer must always have the right to decide on. If somebody has the skills and expertise to be an architect but does not have the necessary regulation—if that person is not cornered and driven into a high - end cost structure by a Government regulation, but can still give the design work necessary to “Bob the builder” or the home-handyman renovator—then why should he or she not be allowed to do that? The Minister has not answered that question.

National will support this bill because we believe that in its current form, provided that it is not subject to the passing of any Supplementary Order Papers that the Government may subsequently bring forward, it is good legislation.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) : I am sure that the Minister will take some calls at the Committee stage. We are currently at the second reading. This bill has had a fairly long gestation. I have certainly met with architects in my electorate to discuss their concerns and to listen to the issues of importance to them, and I was very pleased to have that opportunity. Architecture is an important profession. Our built environment is of considerable importance to New Zealand. Although our natural environment receives a lot of attention, our built environment is deserving of attention as well—and it does receive the attention due to it from time to time.

This bill makes a number of changes to improve standards for architects, and I think that that is largely what the profession was aiming for in its consultation—to modernise the legislation that applies to it. The bill has many key features. They include the protection of the title “registered architect” and the establishment of a public register that includes details of disciplinary action taken against an architect in order to provide better information to his or her consumers. My understanding and experience is that the profession is very client and customer - focused, but the establishment of a public register will be of benefit to both the profession and its clients. The introduction of ongoing competency testing for architects is another feature of the bill, as is a modernised governance and administration process, which will help to bring the legislation in line with current practice in occupational regulation.

A number of amendments were made by the Government Administration Committee. One was an amendment to increase the maximum fine for persons claiming to be registered when, indeed, that is not the case. That fine increases to $10,000 to prevent the registration system from being undermined, because the protection of the integrity of registration is very important. Another amendment replaces the protected title “architect” with “registered architect”. Consistent with that, the select committee has recommended a number of consequential amendments, including a change to the title of the bill and a change to the name of the registration board.

It is interesting that although there is agreement on, and support for, this bill around the House, the National Party opposes the establishment of the registration body, even though that is what the profession wants. The National Party has recommended instead that the New Zealand Institute of Architects undertake registration through self-regulation. Given that the vast majority of parties in this House have listened to representatives from the profession, I think National is really just reverting to type, saying: “Let the market rule.” We all know that that principle never works—it never has and it never will. The National Party is basically reverting to type and not responding to professions and organisations that know themselves better than anybody else. This bill will provide advantages for both practitioners and their clients. It is a good bill, and I think that we are all keen to assist in facilitating its rapid passage through the House.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : One is loath to criticise colleagues, particularly colleagues who work fairly hard and diligently on a select committee, but I have to say that in terms of this bill they got it wrong. They got the substance of the bill correct, because the industry is supportive of the substance of the bill. But the bill as it stands now, without the Supplementary Order Paper, protects the term “registered architect” and leaves the word “architect” out there floating for anybody to use—effectively anybody.

Before I had read the report back from the select committee, I had architect friends contacting me, and they were up in arms. They outlined, in quite some detail, who could or would be likely to use the term “architect”. In basic English an architect, in the minds of most people, is a person who designs buildings or modifications to buildings. When we think of an architect we do not think of a landscape architect, or a software architect—I suggest most of us do not. Because these architects who approached me were so angry, I did a little private survey, asking many people what an architect was—just that one word. They all, without exception, said that an architect was a person who designed buildings. Most of them added: “I would have thought you were old enough to know that, Peter!” after I asked the question. I told them I was asking for a genuine reason.

I think this Supplementary Order Paper was initiated by Mr Tamihere. One has to say he has been getting a lot of flak recently, but if it is true that he initiated it, a degree of debt is owed to the honourable John Tamihere, because without this Supplementary Order Paper this bill could go through protecting the term “registered architect”, as against “architect”.

New Zealand First is absolutely committed to protecting the term “architect” for people who design buildings. Of course, they have to be up to a standard. When we say “buildings” we are talking about homes, commercial buildings, and what have you. But when it comes to homes it is the biggest investment, by far, that anybody makes. If a person has a home or commercial building designed by an architect, that person wants to know that the architect is up to speed. So we want the architect to be registered, to have gone through the necessary exams, and to be kept up to speed with industry requirements. So it is very, very important that an architect is actually an architect, not somebody who has done half a course or has some ability in designing things. He or she must be a fully qualified architect.

New Zealand First is keen to support the Supplementary Order Paper where protection is again offered to the words “registered architect” and “architect”. An architect in simple English language is a person who designs buildings, and the term should be protected. I have to say that for that to escape the notice of the select committee is to do a huge disservice not only to architects but also to people who would use them. I believe that the Minister’s amendment, which, as I say, I think was initiated by John Tamihere, will bring the bill back into line, and I am personally very, very grateful that that has been undertaken. On that basis, New Zealand First will support this bill.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : I have to say that I was dying to get the call immediately after the last Government speaker, the senior Government whip, because it was so amusing to see what pure lip service was being paid to the Architects Bill. No Minister was paying any attention. The speaker the Government put up was reading, essentially, from the notes of the Government Administration Committee and was applauding what the committee had done, not knowing that her own Minister had a Supplementary Order Paper sitting on the Table to undo all the good work she was applauding. Mr Brown thinks that the undoing is a good idea; he thinks that Mr Tamihere’s amendments are a sound idea. I do not.

I think it is quite wrong for any profession to seize a general descriptive word, a word that has a meaning in common language that goes far wider than the technical meaning, and then to say: “That’s ours.”, and that anyone else cannot use it. What that seems to mean, for example, is that a landscape architect could be in trouble if he or she were involved in helping to draw up plans for a building. A financial architect doing a financing plan would be in trouble. There are all sorts of uses of the term “architect”—for example, the architect of the Iraq war. It is a general term, a general piece of language.

We simply do not do that in other ways. Accountants, for example, were not allowed to seize ownership of the term “accountant”—the description that was given protection is “chartered accountant”. I think that Mrs Pettis was absolutely right in her praise for what the select committee did. She very correctly identified the contribution the select committee made. It heard submissions and it resisted the self-interested whining of the establishment of the profession, which wanted something far too wide. So for her to draw attention to what the select committee did and to praise it in her speech, as she just did, was sensible.

The sad thing is that Mrs Pettis’ own Government colleagues and Cabinet do not agree with her, and they seem to—

Jill Pettis: Mr Franks, you are putting words into my mouth.

STEPHEN FRANKS: If Mrs Pettis cares to look at her Hansard, she will find that she praised the change of title of the bill to the Registered Architects Bill. She praised the change the committee made to ensure that the term “registered architect” is protected. What the Supplementary Order Paper on the Table will do, even though it may not have been read by anyone on the Government benches, is reverse that good work. I see that the honourable Minister Mr Barker has just suggested that Mrs Pettis hold her tongue, because he knows that I am dead right and that she was dead right the first time. This Government wants to suck up to the professional body and has decided that it is far better to grease to the people with the money—the people who run the professional organisation—and to give them what they have asked for.

That is not usually how this Government portrays consumer protection. This Government usually says that it is making businessmen whine and is making trouble for business, because that is the way it claims it is doing something for the consumer. Instead, in this case, it has succumbed to the representations from the industry. It has taken away a perfectly descriptive word for a whole host of people who should be able to refer to themselves as architects but not as registered architects, and this bill now changes that. I hope that the National Party will vote against the Supplementary Order Paper, because it is wrong.

Lindsay Tisch: We’ll vote against it, unless I get my Supplementary Order Paper changed.

STEPHEN FRANKS: OK, so there is a qualification. Well, I will be interested to follow it, and I hope that we can vote on the same side. I always prefer that.

I am certainly very disappointed to hear that New Zealand First is going to go along with a move to lock up a sensibly descriptive word and give it to one profession. We do not, for example, say that only engineers who are members of the institute can use the term “engineer”. They have to be registered engineers. We do not lock up the term “accountant” for accountants. The new bill for lawyer regulation will not give the degree of absolute assurance that the Registered Architects Bill will now give.

I am glad to see a relatively simple and straightforward piece of law coming in to reform the law that regulates the architecture profession. I am interested that consists of only 48 pages. I compare that with Mr Goff’s disaster bill for the law society of over 300 pages, in which he hands to them just about everything they ever wanted.

I am interested, of course, in one or two of the other things that the Supplementary Order Paper does—in the other last-minute thoughts. One of the problems in this bill that one would have thought would be looked at closely flows from the very poor drafting. The bill refers to plans, but it does not say what a plan is. In this case, for example, I expect we will explore in the Committee of the whole House what a plan that someone draws for a building is. Does it include the landscaping plan? Does it include the plan, for example, of a shopping centre, which would be a very detailed plan outlining how the letting is to be done and exactly which shops will go where?

That would not normally be considered something that the Government would regulate in an Architects Bill. But this legislation is so poorly conceived, like the Building Act, that we will probably end up with some poor real estate agents suddenly being advised someday by their lawyers that they are caught by an Act they would never have dreamt would touch them There would be a plan, obviously, for the letting, progressive opening, and sharing of income—in essence, the terms that are used in everyday language to do everyday things. This bill now carelessly seems to give a prior right, or so-called protection, to the architect’s profession in relation to those.

I think that commonsense will apply. Probably, most people will simply ignore those meanings of the law, but it is just bad handling of Government business to end up with legislation that is so easy for a lawyer to criticise when he or she looks at it for the first time. ACT is not represented on the Government Administration Committee; I wish we did have enough entitlements to allow us to be on that committee, because the Government seems to send to it everything that it wants to slide through and pretend is unimportant. The committee simply has not done a good job on the technical aspects of the bill. The definitions are sloppy and casual, and they will require people to say: “Surely Parliament can’t have meant that. We will read it as if it doesn’t say what it actually says.”

That is the same phenomenon we are seeing at the moment in relation to the Building Act. The Minister in charge, Mr Carter, has had to stand up here and tell us all that he has instructed his officials to tell local authorities that they ought not to apply the law as it reads, and that they should simply not enforce it—in other words, do something that we have tried always to get away from constitutionally: exercise administrative discretions to overcome poorly written law.

This bill is likely to be supported, overall, by the ACT party. We will vote against the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. We will do that for the reasons so ably outlined by Mrs Pettis, the Government’s chief whip, before she realised that the Government had done a back-flip and put in a Supplementary Order Paper that completely undoes the good work of the select committee. We hope that Mrs Pettis will have the courage of her convictions and join us in voting down the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper and in voting against New Zealand First and United Future, which I expect will also support the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper. It will be very gratifying indeed to see such a fine speech as that made by Mrs Pettis followed up by a vote that is in line with her own rhetoric.

MIKE WARD (Green) : The bill does not prevent anyone from designing a building; it prevents people from being misled into believing that those who are not suitably qualified to design buildings get the job of doing so. That is the purpose of this bill, and it makes good sense. Designing a building is more than just putting up something that looks good; it also has to work. Some buildings that owners have had built in recent times indicate that the protection they might expect from local authorities and building inspectors is not necessarily there. Therefore, going to an architect who has suitable qualifications makes very good sense.

Architects have the task of designing those most enjoyable spaces in our community—and we do not have enough of those kinds of buildings—making sure that people know, when they go to architects, that they are architects, that they have been trained, and that they know not just how to make things look good but how to make them work and to be weatherproof as well, and that is important.

A couple of interesting points have been raised, and I guess they have been raised with the other parties as well, by an architect in Auckland—that is, relating to the idea that the term “architect” needs to be more clearly defined. The reason is that architects not only draw up plans for buildings; there are other sorts of architects, such as software architects, landscape architects, financial architects, etc., who also draw up plans relating to buildings. It is perhaps important that that is made clear in the Supplementary Order Paper.

The term also applies to registered architects. Apparently, 40 percent of architects do not register as architects, and that is something that needs to be addressed. The Greens support this legislation. It does give a reasonable level of protection.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : United Future will support the second reading of the Architects Bill, which is to become the Registered Architects Bill. It is notable that I was part of the Government Administration Committee for the purpose of this bill. At that time a large part of the reason for joining the committee to deal with this bill was that we were dealing with the reformation of the New Zealand Institute of Architects in conjunction with the Building Bill that went through. It is important to note that there is a link between the two. That link really comes down to the terminology of “licensed building practitioner” in the Building Bill and, in particular, the need for all building practitioners, which will include architects, to be licensed building practitioners in order to do the work they want to do, in so far as it relates to the construction of buildings.

It may be worthwhile outlining both our understanding and the select committee’s understanding of the way the two relate, because I know there has been some confusion about it in the past. As I just said, all building practitioners will need to be licensed. The intention is that when it comes to design work, licensed building practitioners will be of a design category. They will be divided into classes of licence under the design category, and different classes of licensee will be entitled to do different levels of work, depending on their competence, experience, and training.

It is yet to be seen just how many classes of licence there will be under the design category, but it is envisaged there may be three or four. That was the expectation we had at the time we were considering it. We are not sure whether the licences will rise up in scale from one to four, if that is the number, or down from one to four. I will assume it is scaled upwards and that a class 1 licence will entitle very basic work to be done and a class 4 licence the most sophisticated buildings and complexes.

It is envisaged that the people who are able to obtain class 4 - type licences will be registered architects and are likely only to be registered architects. Certainly, that class of licence may be open to people who can prove they have the same competencies of registered architects, but it is hard to see how that would happen without their having registration, at least of an equivalent status to the sorts of qualifications and experience that New Zealand - trained registered architects have. So the highest level will be reserved to registered architects, and the lower levels to people such as those who are currently termed “architectural designers”, and so on downwards.

So there needed to be a dovetailing of the Architects Bill with the intention under the Building Bill to have those classes of licence. We took that into account in the select committee when we looked at this.

As we looked at the need for changes to the architectural profession and its governance, and at the need to update the New Zealand Registered Architects Board, as it will become, we took into account three aspects, as alluded to in the report we wrote. The first was consumer protection, the second was professional competencies, and the third was market competition. We were well aware of the confusion in the public sphere between people who call themselves architects, and people who call themselves architectural designers. Indeed, I recall mentioning at the time that I had spoken to a friend and asked what the difference was between an architect and an architectural designer. He was of the view that the architectural designer was the one who had the qualifications, which just shows the level of confusion that was there. And that was somebody who had actually been involved in building his own house, and one would have thought he would have known something about it.

But there is certainly a degree of confusion in relation to the term “architect”, as to who is an architect and what it means when people say they are architects. It is really that, more than anything else, that motivated the select committee to think that it was time we should be referring to “registered architects” rather than simply to “architects”.

The second reason for doing that, as previously stated, is that we have all sorts of architects now. We have landscape architects, eyelash architects, and a wide range of people who are using the term “architect”. It has become something of a generic term. The term “registered”, of course, is already well used in the professional sphere. We have registered medical practitioners. We also use the term “chartered” for chartered accountants and chartered professional engineers. So New Zealanders have become accustomed to having an adjective in front of a generic occupational term. We have registered valuers, as another example.

That then gives the public some sort of idea that the person they are dealing with has not only some professional competency but also the backing of some sort of registration board that has acknowledged that competency. It seemed to us that it was to the benefit, in fact, of the architectural profession to be using the term “registered architect”, because in the mind of the average person it denotes that that person has something more than simply a degree, or holding themselves out to be capable of something. It means they have the backing of a board that has registered them, and a professional organisation that is effectively behind the term “registered” and that is giving some credibility to what they do. It is actually in the long-term interests of architects to refer to themselves as registered architects. No doubt, under this bill they will be able to do that, because we are indeed changing the term to “registered architect”. The sooner architects who are experienced, have the necessary qualifications, and have become members of the New Zealand Registered Architects Board, refer to themselves as registered architects and not architects, the better it will be for consumer protection, and the better it will be for the architectural industry generally.

That raises the issue of what to do with people who are at a lower level of competence but who are designing basic buildings—maybe single homes that are not complex, garages, or structures of that sort—and their ability to be able to do that work, and to call themselves architects rather than architectural designers and titles of that nature, as they do now. There is a huge amount of confusion out there about people who are using that other sort of terminology. I do not think it is feasible that architects should be able to ban the use of titles like “architectural designer”. It makes for too much of a closed shop. There is a place for people who are not registered as architects to do that sort of basic work and, as I said right at the very beginning, the whole purpose of the Building Bill, in terms of the licensed building practitioner regime, is specifically to ensure that people who have competency at a certain level are able to exercise that level without having to have the high standards that registered architects require.

So that is really the issue that confronted us, and that is the reason the Government Administration Committee thought it would move to the term “registered architect”, and free up the term “architect” to be used in a generic sense.

One of the other things we had debate about, and conflict with the architects board, was the issue of who should be the chairperson and deputy chairperson of that board, and how they should be appointed. The bill provides that the Government will appoint the chairperson and deputy chairperson, but the architects wanted to make those appointments themselves. I think the Government’s insistence that it appoint chairperson and deputy chairperson is right, because at the end of the day that board has quite a strong element of consumer protection. There is nothing to stop the Government appointing to those roles a person who is an architect, and in most instances I think it would certainly be advisable, for credibility’s sake, to have appointees who were knowledgable about the industry they were meant to deal with.

Nevertheless, there is a role for the Government to be involved from a consumer protection point of view, in order to ensure that the architects board does not become a closed shop, and to do such things as limit, by very strict rules, those who can enter their profession. There is the important role of allowing some degree of freedom, and not having a hierarchy created, and that is one way that that can be achieved.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) : It is a pleasure to take a call on the Architects Bill, because I took part in the select committee process for dealing with it. I was invited to the join the Government Administration Committee, which was ably chaired by Dianne Yates, and we did a very extensive examination of, first of all, the weathertight homes problem and the debacle that followed that. Then, at the same time as the Building Bill was before that committee we examined the close relationship between the Architects Bill and the new Building Bill. It was during that process that we realised there was a need to link the two pieces of legislation.

That link comes about through the licensed building practitioner regime. Through that regime there is a set of classes of licence, and architects fall into one of those categories. During the select committee process we heard from numerous people for and against the retention of exclusive use of the name “architect”. As a member of the committee, I hate to disagree with my colleague Peter Brown on this issue. I understand the position he has taken, but I agree with the outcome of the select committee process. The committee agreed to deal with architects under the term “registered architect”, and to free up the term “architect” for those people who have the necessary qualifications. I give the example of people who have a qualification such as Bachelor of Architecture. Such people should be able to use the term “architect”. They have the qualification, and with a certain amount of experience they will fit into the licensed building practitioner format, so there is a place for them in that structure. Obviously, there is a means of discipline within that structure, and there is also a means of identifying what level they are capable of. The registered architects will have been accepted into their own institution, and will be recognised, accordingly, as licensed building practitioners.

It is interesting to note that during the select committee inquiry into the bill the New Zealand Institute of Architects came before us and claimed to have a certain number of members. After the select committee produced its report, there was a mad flurry of activity behind the scenes, and all the MPs on the committee were lobbied. I was one who was lobbied to try to have me change my view on it. I had a visit from Chen Palmer and Partners, along with—

Jill Pettis: How much did it cost you—$3,000?

BRENT CATCHPOLE: Well, it did not cost me anything. That firm was representing the Architects Education and Registration Board and the New Zealand Institute of Architects. It was during that discussion that the New Zealand Institute of Architects claimed that its membership was 2,000, which did not tally with the numbers that had been given to us during its presentation to the select committee. During the select committee process it had said the membership was 1,000. When questioned why there was a difference in the figures, the institute agreed that its membership was 1,000, but said there were another 1,000 trying to join. I have to question why that other 1,000 were being included in its membership. When I questioned members of the institute further as why those people were not being welcomed into their club—I have to use the term “club”, because that is the way it seemed to us during the select committee process; it had become a closed shop or club type of arrangement—I learnt that some of those people either elected to remain outside of it, or were being kept outside of it, because they had disagreements with the institute. It was during that process that I realised we had it right in splitting away the registered architects, and having a separate category of architects.

I was very disappointed in the claim made by the institute that it had received dozens and dozens of letters from overseas expressing grave concern about the proposed changes. When I asked for copies of those letters, I received some. I point out that the meeting with the people from Chen Palmer and Partners took place on 19 May 2004. The date on the first letter, from Paris, is 19 May 2004. If we take the time difference into account, that was the day after our meeting. The next letter is dated 22 May 2004, and was from a New Zealand architect. Then there was another one, from Scotland, dated 20 May 2004—the letters are starting to be dated several days after the meeting—and it just goes on. Those letters are all dated after our meeting. I wondered whether the institute had actually received any of those letters beforehand—perhaps those dates were incorrectly put on them! But I was very disappointed in that process, because the institute’s representatives were making claims about the institute’s membership that were not quite correct, and then they made claims about letters they had received from overseas.

I have to question their ability to manage their institute, because we were disturbed by the fact that they were very blasé during the select committee process, but when things looked bad for them they brought in the big guns. It must have cost an awful lot of money to have Chen Palmer and Partners lobby for them.

Jill Pettis: Yes, it’s $3,000 an hour.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: How much an hour? Good heavens! For the institute’s representatives suddenly to take a heavy-handed approach like that, after the select committee had gone through its process, shows, I suspect, that they were smarting. The institute’s membership must be very angry with the representatives who did the presentation. They were very blasé and were not very forthcoming with the information they should have been presenting.

Personally, I am of the view that there should be two classes, with the criterion for registered architects being that they meet the qualifications of the Registered Architects Board, and there being another level for architects on their own. Those people will have qualifications like a Bachelor of Architecture, and they should be allowed to use that qualification, because they have earned it. They should not be excluded. They have the ability and the qualification to produce quality designs and buildings. Of course, under the Building Act and the whole process of licensed building practitioners they fall into one of the categories. Depending on their level of competence and qualification, they should be able to fit in accordingly.

The one other point I would like to raise on this part of this bill is the link between the Building Act and the Architects Bill, and the regulatory means for disciplinary action. It needs to go both ways. If registered architects fail in terms of the Building Act, then that information is passed back to the architects’ board for disciplinary action. Ordinary architects, who are not registered, are disciplined under the Building Act—they are kept in line there.

With that point, I conclude that I strongly believe that the select committee had it right. A very good examination was made by the select committee, and I congratulate Dianne Yates on the work she did on it. I am disappointed that the Government, because it has been heavily lobbied, is changing the bill with a Supplementary Order Paper that will come up later.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on this bill, which has been around for a long time. In fact, I heard the Minister for Courts say in the opening address that this bill goes hand in hand with the Building Act. Well, say no more! What have members spent most of today, under urgency, doing but trying to fix up some of the issues in the Building Act by way of legislation that does not bear any resemblance to the Building Act?

I want to draw the House’s attention to what has been happening in other countries. A review of what happened with our closest neighbour, Australia, is significant. Our Government Administration Committee made a trip to Australia, and information was supplied to us—and I took a particular interest in this matter—about a review of legislation regulating the architectural profession. It was a public inquiry. I think the points that came out of it are relevant for the debate we are having, and for the legislation that we will be voting on shortly, not to mention the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government has subsequently produced.

It is interesting to note that architects have wanted a monopoly. That is why, as Mr Catchpole has said, they were quite horrified at suggestions that the term “architect” be replaced by “registered architect”. I note the architects’ submission to the select committee, dated May 2004, on the proposal in the committee’s report to remove protection of the title “architect” and, instead, to protect the title “registered architect”. They stated: “The change has taken the architectural profession by surprise and it has provoked considerable shock and concern. There is widespread agreement within the profession that this will spell the end of the longstanding reputation of high standards and professionalism that architects have earned over the years, and the end of consumer protection safeguard incorporated in the protection of the title ‘architect’.”

That is what they said; here is their submission, and that is what they said. But if we look at overseas experience, we see that in Australia, for example, architects have only a very small share of the market for design of new residences. Usually, residences are of a standard design or they are project homes. But even with large commercial projects, architects face competition from specialist project engineers, managers, and non-architect designers. That is the nature of the business they are in. So the experience of other places would suggest that architects are having to compete more and more for their share of the market, and what the architects in New Zealand are suggesting is that they need that monopoly protection.

If we look at what the recommendation of the commission was, we see that its report states that amendments “could improve current Architects Acts by reducing impediments to competition and promoting transparency and accountability of Architects Boards. In particular, introduction of a two-tier system which freed up use of the generic title ‘architect’ (and its derivatives), and applied statutory certification only to a title such as ‘registered architect’…”. That is the Australian experience.

That is one reason why the Government Administration Committee decided that “registered” is, in fact, a term that other professions use. Let us look at some of the numerous examples that have already been given. If we look in the Yellow Pages—at the accounting profession, for example—we see that there are chartered accountants and accountants. There is clear separation between roles in such professions. If we look at the profession of which I am a member, valuers, we find that there are valuers, chattel valuers, plant and machinery valuers, and—surprise, surprise—registered valuers. So the term is commonplace. And there are other professions—some of which have been mentioned, like engineers—in which there is a two-tier system that gives consumer protection. If we look at even the motor industry—and the member over there in the back row has an interest in that—we find motor vehicle dealers and licensed motor vehicle dealers.

So, having looked at those other professions, we are saying to architects that they can stand on a pedestal in the role of registered architect, but to say that one cannot be an architect in any other sense is absolutely and completely wrong, because the word “architect” is generic. The dictionary entry for the word “architect” states it means a designer who prepares plans for buildings or ships, or supervises their construction, or a person who brings about a specific thing, as in “the architect of his own fortune”—and it goes on and on. The point I make here is that “architect” is a generic term. For the building industry or people who prepare and design plans to say that only they can use the term “architect” is completely and utterly wrong. Another dictionary I looked at actually states that an architect is a person who plans, devises, or contrives the achievement of a desired result. So there may be software architects, landscape architects, financial architects, conservation architects—I could go on and on.

The point I make here is that National members are supporting the bill because those who sat around the select committee table represented various professions where there are already such tiers. Architects, lawyers, accountants, and—as in my case—valuers have a two-tier system.

One of the areas that we are concerned about—and this is a point the Minister made—is that we are not happy with the registration board approach. We have always subscribed to the view that we get the best results with a self-regulatory regime. If someone wants to be a member of an organisation, let the organisation set the rules and conditions. Why should Parliament dictate how the profession operates? That is mentioned in our report as being an important factor.

I want to bring to the House’s attention my amendment that changes very slightly some of the points made in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 354. Originally, that Supplementary Order Paper was in John Tamihere’s hands. It has now, of course, been given to Chris Carter. When we look at the definitions in the Building Act we see that there is absolutely no correlation between them and the definitions in this bill, but this bill was actually brought in at the time when we were debating the Building Bill. The bill before us has sat on the Order Paper for months and been moved around. I want clarification that will enable us, when we come to debate the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, to tie in its intent with what is actually in the Building Act, because the Minister and other speakers have said that the two go hand in hand.

In the Building Act we have a definition of “plans and specifications”. It states that that term means: “drawings, specifications, and other documents according to which a building is proposed to be constructed, altered, demolished, or removed…”. So there is a clear definition in the Building Act, but there is no definition in the Architects Bill, as to what a plan is or a specification is.

The other question is what “architect” means. I have said it is a generic term that is used by many professions. The bill does not define the word “architect”. As a result, the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 354 provides an explicit definition for the purposes of what is to be the Registered Architects Bill, namely a “person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises construction of buildings …”. If that is to be the definition of a registered architect, then it is my view that the same definition should be in the Building Act.

• Bill read a second time.
• Name changed to Registered Architects Billname changed to Registered Architects Bill.