Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) : I move, That the Architects Bill be now read a first time. I will be moving that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee to be considered alongside the Building Bill, as it represents an integral element of the wider review of the Building Act and the actions we are taking to improve inputs into the building process. Like the Building Bill, this bill has been the subject of extensive consultation with affected parties. During the drafting stages, officials consulted the Architects Education and Registration Board, and the bill reflects that input.

In my speech in the first reading debate on the Building Bill, I said that it was the Government’s view that buildings should be designed and built right the first time. This bill provides for the first element of that—buildings designed right the first time. It repeals the Architects Act and introduces a modern regulatory framework for architects. Competent people lead to competent building design. Both the Hunn committee and the Government Administration Committee inquiry into the weathertightness of buildings in New Zealand identified a need to improve standards in the building industry. This bill makes a number of changes to improve those standards in respect of architects, drawing on recent practice in occupational regulation and, in particular, on the Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act. It also fits with the architects’ desire to update their legislation, which is now 40 years old. We have worked with the New Zealand Institute of Architects and the Architects Education and Registration Board in the development of this bill.

Part 1 outlines the commencement of the bill and other preliminary provisions. Part 2 outlines the registration, complaints, and disciplinary processes and procedures that will apply to architects. A key feature of this part is the introduction of both initial and ongoing competency assessment for architects. The current legislation allows for only the initial competency assessment of architects. At the moment, an architect can remain registered indefinitely, provided he or she pays the applicable fees and does not act in a manner that may result in removal from the register. The current legislation fails to ensure that initial competency standards are maintained or, indeed, to recognise the potential for changes in design methods over time to require different competencies from those initially tested.

Providing people with the information they need to choose competent individuals to undertake building design is also important. The bill does that by continuing to protect the title of architect, and by establishing a public register that includes details of disciplinary action taken against an architect over the preceding 3 years.

Enforcement and sanctions must also be meaningful in order for a regulatory regime to work as intended. The criteria for disciplinary action under the 1963 Act are considered to have set the threshold for action too high to allow the regime to work effectively. The bill establishes new criteria that set out the grounds for disciplinary action. Penalties have not been increased since the 1963 Act came into force. They are outdated and provide little deterrent to offending. The maximum fine for breaches of the Act is $200. The bill increases the maximum fine for breaches to $5,000, in line with comparable maximum fines under the Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act.

Part 3 of the bill establishes a new board—the New Zealand Architects Registration Board—to replace the existing Architects Education and Registration Board. This part of the bill also modernises the reporting and financial accountability requirements of the registration board, its functions, and other administrative processes and procedures, so that they are in line with current practice for regulating occupational groups.

The final part of the bill deals with miscellaneous provisions and the transitional arrangements to the new regime. It gives 1 year for the new board to develop rules and regulations governing architects, after which the new controls will come into force.

The bill is an integral element of the wider review of the Building Act and is complementary to the Building Bill, which has already been referred to the Government Administration Committee. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : I start by stating that the National Party will support the Architects Bill going to the Government Administration Committee. We will be watching it carefully as it proceeds through the select committee, with a particular eye on the cost regime it will impose on people who use the services of architects. I say at the outset that I am a person who has, on quite a regular basis, used the services of architects. I congratulate the people in that profession on their creative ability, and I say that over the time that I have observed the building industry New Zealand has made dramatic improvements in design, and there are now buildings being created throughout New Zealand that will be seen as remarkable creations in their own right in the years to come.

We welcome the updating of the legislation, which is now 40 years old. We have had considerable problems with leaky buildings throughout New Zealand and, in particular, those problems have been associated with some designs in Auckland. There is no doubt that it is timely for the Government to take a look at the current regime for the registering of architects. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on taking the opportunity to review legislation that is 40 years old.

On reading the bill, I note that some work has been done on the regulatory impact and compliance cost statement. When I read that, I was far from convinced that the legislation would not impose considerable additional costs on the people who use the services of architects. Ultimately, those people are the consumers who are building houses up and down New Zealand. As the bill proceeds through the select committee, the National Party members on that committee will be watching carefully, to make sure that it is not something that imposes excessive costs as a means of ensuring a little more safety around the services of architects—costs that, no doubt, will be borne by the client of a particular architectural service.

We will wait with interest as the legislation proceeds through the select committee. We reserve our position as to our long-term support for the legislation, depending on the select committee process, but we certainly welcome the bill into the House at this stage.

Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Associate Minister of Justice) : I am very happy to stand in support of this Government initiative to update our architects legislation. It is much needed after 40 years. We believe the Government Administration Committee will do a good job in terms of a proper review, and will perhaps come up with amendments to the legislation that will be warranted. So we are very supportive of the legislation, and look forward to the select committee’s deliberations.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) : The Architects Bill continues the registration regime, replacing the current 1963 Act. That Act has been around for 40 years and is long overdue for an upgrade, but not for a complete upgrade. The most important part of the upgrade in this bill is really to do with the fines: increasing the maximum fine from $200, which was probably quite a lot of money 40 years ago, to a figure of $5,000. That will probably hit the pocket of an architect who is out of line with the industry, and who therefore probably deserves to be hit in that way.

One of the issues we would like to explore in this bill is that people who are already members of the Institute of Architects and registered under the 1963 Act are to be automatically registered under the new legislation. Although they are deemed to be registered under the new Act, they have to re-register prior to 30 June 2007. Existing architects are subject to the new legislation in full from the time it comes into effect on 1 July 2005, but they must re-register. We cannot understand that. Why do they have to re-register, even though their registration has rolled over and they are covered by the new legislation? I cannot work out the reason for that provision. When the existing registration of architects is transferred over, they fall under the requirements of this new legislation, and those requirements provide that they comply with the legislation and the ongoing competency examinations to ensure that they are up to date with changes in design methods, so that they know the design methods that are coming through and can identify them and use them in their building designs.

The idea of re-registration was brought about by the weathertight homes inquiry. During that inquiry it was discovered that there was a wide range of causes of the problem, and I would suggest that the competency of architects was not one of the major ones. The problem of leaky homes and what have you was not necessarily the result of ongoing incompetence in the practices of architects. Instead, it was a combination of the Building Act, a building code that encouraged design innovation, and a climate of rapid development and cost cutting, combined with the unexpected results of mixing newly introduced materials. Those results were unexpected, and I do not believe that any amount of competency examination or ongoing training would have made any difference to the weathertight homes problem.

After all, the Building Industry Authority and the Building Research Association of New Zealand, which are both responsible for monitoring, testing, and approving the use of new materials, approved practices such as the mixing of monolithic cladding with untreated timber. Why, therefore, should any architect, having been told that those materials were OK to use together, be sceptical of that, whether or not he or she had had any additional training? The Building Industry Authority refused to acknowledge that there was a developing problem during that time, even though it was presented with examples of the rotting timber and the problems with leaks, and also with numerous reports from overseas that confirmed a major problem was developing. I cannot see that the ongoing testing of architects for competency would have made any difference whatsoever in that situation.

One major requirement we are asking for is that the Government and the select committee consider delaying the full passage of this bill until after the Building Bill has been fully considered and thought through. There are a number of issues within the Building Bill that could well affect this particular bill, and I would hate to see the new Architects Bill pushed through the House, and all of a sudden we discover, after the Building Bill has been completed, that this bill is out of step with that new legislation.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: That’s why it’s going to the Government Administration Committee, so that you can deal with that issue there.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: I am pleased the Minister is saying that this bill will go through the Government Administration Committee. I am pleased she is saying that. [Interruption]

Rodney Hide: Aren’t they rude?

BRENT CATCHPOLE: They are absolutely rude. They bleat all the time, do they not? My request is that the House does not complete its consideration of this bill ahead of the Building Bill. The Minister is assuring me that because this bill is to be dealt with by the same select committee that is considering the Building Bill that will not happen. But because we have the Building Bill, the building code will subsequently have to be revisited. I would hate to see this bill being superseded rapidly because of a change in the Building Bill and the new building code.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: The building code has nothing to do with this bill.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: The building code practices have everything to do with this bill. If architects do not understand the building code, how can they possibly design a building that will fit in with and measure up to the required building code? The Minister is suggesting that we have a building code that is put around whatever is decided in this bill. The building code should be the measure that decides how people operate and how people build buildings.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: This bill is based on ongoing competency, not 1 year’s competency and payment of an annual fee.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: The Minister wants to carry on about competency and the annual fee, so I will talk about the annual fee and the ongoing competency requirements.

Those measures will add huge compliance costs, because there will be a considerable increase in the requirement for architects to upgrade and update their skills, and to prove that they have upgraded their skills on a regular basis so they continue to be qualified for registration as an architect. If they fail to continue to upgrade their skills, they will fall foul of this legislation. That is great. That is important, but it will cost an awful lot of money.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: The architects want this bill.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: Yes, the Institute of Architects is pleased that this bill justifies the institute’s existing procedures, because it already has an ongoing registration scheme and an ongoing training and competency scheme. But the preamble to the bill suggests that a lot of architects do not belong to the institute.

I would suggest that most of them do. They are properly qualified. Architects are fully qualified members of the institute, and they already have to be registered under the current Act.

New Zealand First supports this bill going to the select committee.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party will support the bill. It enables a good registration system for architects, and we are particularly pleased that it makes provision, under clause 67(1)(c), for a code of minimum standards of ethical conduct for architects. I think that is very important, because there is quite a difficult problem in Auckland at the present time, which has been highlighted over the last week by the New Zealand Herald—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have a problem over here. I am sitting right beside Keith Locke, and I am having trouble hearing him because the senior Government whip is screaming at the Ministers Lianne Dalziel and Ruth Dyson. I know that you noticed it, Madam Speaker, and I apologise, but it is very hard in the House if they have long-range conversations.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is quite correct. If members are having conversations, then they should be sitting down. I ask the Minister to please sit down while conversing.

KEITH LOCKE: I will talk about the code of ethics and its importance, given that, at the moment, Auckland faces the problem of the very rapid development of apartment blocks and units. As the New Zealand Herald pointed out in a series of articles over the past week, some of the buildings are of very poor architectural standard. There will be huge development—at the present time there are 45,000 units in Auckland, which is estimated to rise to about 500,000 units by 2050. We need to accommodate an extra 100 people per day in Auckland, so having the right built environment, with architects playing the best role in it, is very important. We just need to go through the streets of Auckland. I particularly dislike going along upper Symonds Street and seeing little boxes of very poor architectural standard. Throughout Auckland so many apartments are being constructed with poor noise insulation, no outlook, and often facing directly on to a neighbouring block. They are an eyesore to the community, and to people passing by them, and are certainly an eyesore for the people who live in them. People get quite depressed if they live in that sort of poorly designed unit, and live in such units for many years. It is not good for people’s mental health and well-being.

It is not just a problem for architects. It is a problem for the community as a whole, and particularly for town planning systems. Auckland City and other cities are trying to address these problems. Auckland City has urban design standards, but they do not really apply to the suburbs in the way that they should, and Auckland City is trying to develop guidelines to rectify this. I think that architects can play a great role, if they abide by the code of ethics and develop proper professional standards. They can make sure that the standards put forward by councils are upheld and implemented by architects, and work in with the community. Architects can be models for working with the community. Around Auckland, different communities are trying to insist on proper community design standards, to protect existing heritage buildings, etc. With this registration system, and with architects being more organised on the basis of a code of ethics, hopefully we can redress some of the problems.

The New Zealand Herald outlines exactly how it works. The problem is often that in designing apartments today, the best architects—the ones who would insist on higher architectural standards—are not getting the work, because developers come along and ask how they can build something the most cheaply, sell it on, and make the greatest profit for the smallest amount of expenditure. It is explained in the that if developers want to build 145 cheap apartments, they will find an architect who will do it. The problem is that there are architects around, who are not the best or are not quality architects, who take this work and build these very bad apartments. I think that this bill will help rectify that situation, so the Green Party will support it to the select committee.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT) : The ACT party is interested in this bill, and we will support it to the select committee for its consideration. This does not mean that we will support the bill at the end of that consideration, but we are certainly interested in what the public has to say. I was very interested in my colleague Keith Locke’s comments, and I just wish that David Benson-Pope would cheer up and concentrate on what is going on in the House, instead of being a snarling, miserable member of the Government.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future) : United Future supports the bill at the first reading, as we are keen to allow the select committee to review the legislation. United Future understands the purpose of the bill, but there are some important features that elicit concern. I will elaborate on the specifics of those concerns as I progress. Allow me to enlarge on what United Future sees as the intent of the bill. The public policy objectives are, firstly, to ensure adequate consumer protection; secondly, to build a framework of regulations that is both effective and efficient; thirdly, to ensure the proficiency of all who undertake work as registered architects; and fourthly, to improve confidence in the building industry. Few could argue that these interrelated objectives are without merit, and, as such, I support the policy rationale behind the bill.

A common thread running through the public policy objectives is the continued statutory protection of the title of “architect”. The saying that it takes only one bad apple to spoil a barrel can be applied to many professional fields of employment. I do understand that good cannot affect bad, and that only bad can affect good. Put the good apple in a bowl of bad apples and it is the good apple that changes, not the bad apple.

Simon Power: Can you just hand the notes out?

PAUL ADAMS: I say to Mr Power that one cannot legislate the human heart, but we can build a nation that rewards excellence, and stands against crime, corruption, and shoddy practices. United Future believes that we should remove the bad apples and encourage the growth of good apples. Let us look at the architecture industry. It is feasible, particularly in a country the size of New Zealand, that architects who fail to properly exercise their respective professional responsibilities will, to some degree, tarnish the good name of their profession. The application of a more modern, stricter, regulatory framework will mean that any bad apples will be dealt with before the barrel goes to market. However, we might ask whether this is the most operative mechanism by which to ensure that standards are maintained for the benefit of architects and consumers alike. I believe that the bill has that potential.

Let us look at the new requirements for ongoing technical competency testing. This would provide many benefits. It will be a measurement of best practice. It will ensure that architects tentatively maintain levels of technical proficiency. It will allow consumers to gain from the proficiency of those professionals truly dedicated to their industry, its good name, and their individual reputations.

Architecture strikes me as a robust and innovative industry, where boundaries are pushed and novel ideas are put into practice. It also strikes me as an industry that requires a solid bedrock of fundamental knowledge by all of its members. [Interruption] I say to thank you to Rodney Hide; it is very encouraging. We should ensure that those who wish to work as architects are compliant with this core knowledge throughout their careers. The introduction of ongoing competency testing should accomplish this, yet I believe we should be mindful not to over-regulate in a manner that would stifle innovation and suppress imagination. We should be mindful that an architect’s desire to pursue roads not yet taken is to be encouraged, and does not need to be held back under the weight of regulatory compliance. In a nutshell, we should be mindful that architects are not whistled out of the game that they should excel in.

Life, I have found, is not measured by the number of breaths we take but by the moments that take our breath away. Great architecture can produce such a moment and should be encouraged. Let me be clear that I understand the need to introduce a modern regulatory framework. It is past due, and the Architects Act needs to be repealed. However, I have concerns with the new regulatory framework with regard to issues of compliance costs and issues of public disclosure. With increased regulations comes the inclination to increase compliance costs. Although the bill modernises the regulatory framework, it does necessitate an increase in regulatory costs. Architecture will have to shoulder that, yet ultimately it will be the consumer who will no doubt pay the price for increased compliance costs. It is highly likely that those increased costs will be passed down to the consumer.

Another key area of concern—and this does really concern me—involves public disclosure. Allow me to draw attention to clause 19 of this bill. This clause allows for public access to a register of architects who have breached regulations and been censured within 3 years of the offence. I applaud both the concept of a code of ethics by which industry members are bound, and the revamping of the disciplinary process. But let me add a caveat. It concerns the public disclosure of disciplined architects. We certainly do not discourage greater transparency with particular regard to episodes of gross negligence. This is most certainly not a list an architect would want to end up on. It could be mortally damaging to his or her career.

Given the seriousness of being included in this register of shame, I believe that there should be discretionary aspects in deciding who is included on the register of shame. Let me illustrate this by asking whether it is just for an architect who commits a minor breach of regulations, and who is consequently disciplined, to be painted with the same brush as an architect who commits a flagrant breach of the regulations and is clearly grossly negligent in duty. Absolutely not! More thought should be given to the nature of the conduct breaches. It is unfair for an architect guilty of late payment of fees to be grouped with someone who endangers life through gross negligence. The weight of these very different breaches is clearly uneven and should be taken into account when deciding on who should be included in a register open to public inspection.

An appearance on this register would toll the death knell for an architects’ career. The decision to include a person on the register should take into account the substance of the offence. I hope that the select committee will consider these concerns. They need to be addressed in light of the far-reaching consequences for architects and consumers alike.

Quite clearly, the Architects Act should be dispatched, to antiquity. It is outmoded and out of step with modern occupational regulations. The policy objectives of the bill are creditable and cannot, in all logic, be contested. However, to make the bill truly beneficial to architects and consumers alike, the aforementioned issues of compliance costs and public disclosure need to be addressed. Therefore, in light of these provisions, United Future will lend support to the Architects Bill being referred to the select committee.

• Bill read a first time, and referred to the Government Administration Committee.