LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : I want to look at Part 2 in conjunction with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 354 and the changes I propose to that Supplementary Order Paper that would, I believe, clarify the position. I want to go back to the point I made during the second reading debate on the question of what an architect is. The word “architect” is not defined in the bill at all. As the bill does not define the term “architect”, the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper has provided a definition for the purposes of the Registered Architects Bill. I made the point—and I reiterate it—that the Supplementary Order Paper states that an architect is: “a person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings …”. But let us look at the Building Act. This is a comparison of two pieces of legislation that go hand in hand. It does not talk about architects at all, but it does talk about plans and specifications. It states: “ ‘Plans and specifications’ means the drawings, specifications, and other documents”—and that is an important phrase—“according to which a building is proposed to be constructed, altered, demolished, or removed ,”. So here we have a difference between the two pieces of legislation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

LINDSAY TISCH: I am referring to clause 7, and to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 354. The point I was making before the tea break was that we have different types of architects. All the so-called architects, be they software architects, landscape architects, financial architects, or conservation architects, will in the course of their work prepare plans. That is the nature of the work they do. So what does the Government mean in its Supplementary Order Paper, therefore, when it states “designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings”? This is the issue I have with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. Is it going to be illegal for software architects to use the title “architect” when they prepare software and concept plans for a building? The Minister might like to take a call on this. Will it be illegal for landscape architects to use the title “architect” if they prepare planting plans for building projects? Will it be illegal for financial architects to use the title “architect” if they prepare financial plans for a property developer’s building portfolio? Will it be illegal for conservation architects to use the title “architect” if they prepare a written conservation plan identification of the architectural or cultural significance of a heritage building?

It would be ridiculous to fine these people $10,000, which is provided for in the bill, because these people are preparing plans that are associated with buildings. It is illogical to limit the use of the generic word “architect” beyond the definition required for the purposes of the bill, and thus the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper needs to clarify the phrase “prepare plans”.

I referred before the dinner break to what is in the Building Act, because that talks about definitions for plans and specifications. I want to see a clear distinction, so that there is no doubt whatsoever about the difference between preparing and drawing plans. My Supplementary Order Paper, which has been tabled, states: “No person who designs buildings, draws plans and prepares specifications”—that is the word change—“for buildings …”, and it continues.

Let us be very clear about that. The clause would read: “No person who designs buildings, draws plans and prepares specifications for buildings, or supervises construction of buildings may use the title ‘architect’ unless they are registered.” That, in my view, tidies it up.

The second point I want to bring to the Committee’s attention is the use of the abbreviation “BArch”. If someone has a Bachelor of Architecture, clause 7(2) states that “a person may use the title ‘registered architect’ or ‘architect’ (or words, initials, or abbreviations of those titles) in accordance with the rules, in representing qualifications or titles awarded by overseas agencies.”

It is the phrase “awarded by overseas agencies” that I have difficulty with. Does it really matter where the qualification comes from? I would have thought that New Zealand qualifications were held in the highest esteem. Certainly, when members of the Institute of Architects appeared before the select committee they made that claim, and I am not doubting their sincerity at all. One must be aware that 40 percent of all architectural graduates do not become architects. They do not become registered. But they have a qualification. It is just the same as someone not practising law who might be able to call himself or herself “such and such LLB”.

Someone could well be an accountant and could call himself or herself a chartered accountant, even though that person might not be practising at the time. I am entitled to call myself a valuer because I have valuation qualifications, but I am not a registered valuer, because I do not have a practising certificate, and that is the difference. Clause 7(2) states: “Despite subsection (1), a person may use that title (or words, initials, or abbreviations of that title), in accordance with the rules, in representing qualifications or titles awarded by overseas agencies.”

What I want to see here, in my submission, and the Minister might take a call on this, is the omission of the words “awarded by overseas agencies”. It is very clear then. People who have qualifications are able to use those qualifications because they have earned them, they have a degree or qualification that they can put beside their name. It does not purport that they will be a registered architect. But, just as with any other profession, those people would be able to use their qualification. I do not believe that people who have an overseas qualification will be deemed to be any greater, and have any greater experience or expertise, and offer to New Zealand consumers the protection that this bill is aiming to give.

I do not think, also, as I read this part, that even if people were to come to New Zealand, they could come here and not be registered but still use the expression “BArch” because it has been awarded by an overseas agency. I think that is wrong. So my Supplementary Order Paper states, quite clearly, that people who have a qualification are able to use that term, even though they may not be registered.

These are the points that National wants to bring to the Committee’s attention. I invite the Minister to take a call specifically on the points I have mentioned. I think they are very clear. I do not think they are contentious in any way. They clarify the position. What they do, in my view, is bring some clarity to the whole debate, because the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper is ambiguous.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) : I will respond to the comments made by Lindsay Tisch, and accept his challenge. Mr Tisch predicates his amendment on a misconception of how the title “architect” can be used. He seems to think that the definition here is ambiguous in some way. I think it is absolutely plain. I have never seen it be more simple or more direct in my life. In new clause 7(1A) on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter, the term “architect” refers to a “… person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings,”. I will pick up The Concise Oxford Dictionary, which I happen to have with me, and look at the definition of the word “building”.

Darren Hughes: Which page?

Hon RICK BARKER: It is on page 172, for the member’s information. “Building” is defined as something built with a roof and walls. That is pretty straightforward. I thought all of us would understand what a building was—walls and a roof.

Mr Tisch thinks that if someone does any architecture in conjunction with software that happens to relate to a house, then the person who is designing the software architecture is somehow making a building. But I say to Mr Tisch that I have never seen a piece of software yet that had walls and a roof. Mr Tisch then goes on to say that if someone does some landscape architecture around a building, in conjunction with a building, then somehow that is a building—that that landscape has walls and a roof. I have not yet seen walls and a roof on a tree or a garden. I have seen them on a glasshouse, which I would say is a building, and I have seen a garden shed that has walls and a roof. But no one calls that a garden. It is the garden shed; it is a building.

Also, we have other sorts of architecture. I saw something very interesting in the Cook Islands loan scam, where tax evasion was the key. Someone described the architecture of the scam—how it was constructed. I would say that someone could front up and use the term “architect” in that context perfectly legally to describe himself or herself as a scam architect. I would say that no one would be able to sue such a person for calling himself or herself a scam architect. That is why Lindsay Tisch’s amendment is wrong—it is absolutely wrong. The amendment in new clause 7(1A) on Supplementary Order Paper 354 goes on to state “supervises the construction of buildings”. An architect is someone who supervises the construction of buildings—something with walls and a roof. So if a person is an architect and supervises software, then obviously it does not have walls and a roof.

The definition is absolutely accurate; there is no ambiguity at all. Reference to a naval architect, which Mr Tisch alluded to, is not confusing, either. If a person calls himself or herself a naval architect, that person is not using the word “architect”. Such a person is saying “naval architect”, because the person realises that he or she is working with a ship’s sides and keels and topsides, but that ships do not have what people would normally see as being walls and a roof. There is a roof on a ship, but people call it something else. I just want to make that clear.

Simon Power: What is it called?

Hon RICK BARKER: I just cannot remember at the moment.

Dail Jones: That’s got the member!

Hon RICK BARKER: It has me for the moment, but I will come back to it in a tick.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): A deck.

Hon RICK BARKER: No, it is not a deck. But then the roof of the top of the ship is a poop deck. I am not sure, but I think there is another term for it—bulkhead, there is a range of other terms.

The point about this issue is that the definition is absolutely clear, and the Government is opposed to the amendment proposed by Lindsay Tisch, just as it is opposed to the second amendment to clause 7(2). What the amendment to that clause on Supplementary Order Paper 354 tries to do is to make sure that if someone has an overseas qualification and comes to New Zealand, then that person is entitled to use that qualification provided it is done within the context of the person being registered as an architect, and it is not being done in order to deceive. But if that person had the title, which may not have been registered, and if using it may, in fact, lead people to believe that he or she is qualified to do the job when he or she is not, then we are saying that is illegal—that we do not like that.

I want to assure Mr Tisch that if someone puts on his or her card that he or she is a landscape architect that person will not be sued, because it is quite clear that the person is a landscape architect, and that that has nothing to do with walls and a roof. If a person calls himself or herself a software architect that person will not be sued, because that person’s work has nothing to do with the walls and roof that make a building. We are perfectly happy with the definition as it stands. I think anybody who reads new clause 7(1A) about an architect being a “… person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises …” would say that that definition is absolutely clear.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : It was good that the Minister took the call to try to explain why he is opposed to Lindsay Tisch’s amendments. I propose to support them, for reasons that do not arise out of anything doctrinaire—it does not seem to me that this bill should involve political alignment—but simply because the words do not tell me what they intend. When the bill refers to “overseas agencies” in clause 7(2), it states that, despite the prohibition on using “architect” or “registered architect” in relation to building when one is not a member of the institute, one can use that title, or words, initials, or abbreviations of one of those titles, “in accordance with the rules”, and it does not tell me here what “the rules” are, but perhaps I have missed it somewhere. But it is worse that it says “awarded by overseas agencies.” Now what on earth is an overseas agency? Is this a mail-order university? What is an overseas agency for the purposes of this bill? It may be that there is a really straightforward answer and that it appears here somewhere. But it seems to me that this could be like Bernie Ogilvy’s university—his doctorate; the sort of thing one goes and spends 5 months at, and as long as one receives the label “architect” one can walk around the purported protection.

Hon Rick Barker: No.

STEPHEN FRANKS: The Minister is saying “No.” I hope he can explain exactly how. Because I have been as quickly as I could through this bill and I cannot see why the term “overseas agencies” does not refer to anyone setting up as the conferrer of useful titles. My amendments suggest that, instead, this clause should refer to “New Zealand university”. I say that because the term “university” in New Zealand is protected—as long as one is not a wānanga it is fiercely protected—and, in fact, the Government has made it plain that it will not be lightly allowing institutions to use that description. So if we wanted to repair this defective provision with the very short notice that we have, a reference to “university” would mean that at least we were referring to BArch, or the qualifications that have some content.

But I look at clause 7(2) as the most “own goal” loophole that can be imagined. It says we have the strict rule that New Zealanders with a New Zealand Batchelor of Architecture cannot use their qualification if they are involved in anything connected with building, but someone who gets one from an overseas institution—and it may be a New Zealander who simply sends for it by mail order—can walk right around the rule. Surely the Government cannot mean that.

If that is not what it means, then the Minister had better read into the record of this Parliament—into Hansard—exactly what it does mean, because the courts will be very puzzled. The courts will be struggling to find just what Parliament was meaning by something as vague as a “title … (or words, initials, or abbreviations of those titles) … awarded by overseas agencies.” I take it that the Minister is being briefed on this. I hope he can explain it.

I now want to go back and speak in support of Mr Tisch’s first amendment. Because it seems very clear indeed that the word “plan” without referring to drawing plans can refer to just about any scheme that involves a building. The Minister may not be from a culture that is familiar with the way business is done, but the first thing to do when building a building is to go to the bank with a business plan. I am sure the Minister is not intending to catch the person who prepares business plans—[Interruption] It may be, as he says, that this is pedantic, but without the extra clarification that Mr Tisch adds, by talking about drawing a plan, I think the court will not have enough to be able to say: “No, drawing a plan doesn’t refer to all those other kinds of plans.” So I think Mr Tisch’s amendment is a very sound one.

But if Mr Tisch’s qualification is wrong we would really like to know the reasons. The Minister scoffed at the notion of, say, a landscape plan, because he said that did not involve a building. That may be the case, except that we now have a Building Act that expressly extends the meaning of “building” a long way past what the Minister talked about as being a structure with a roof. I think I recall from the debate only a few days ago that “building” now includes dams. No one has ever called “dams” a building before. But I think that, for the purposes of the restrictions in the Building Act, it now includes dams—holes in the ground with no roof.

So I suggest he could give a more substantive answer than simply mocking the Tisch amendment and the efforts of the Green Party and United Future Party to do their best in this Committee stage on what should be a non-contentious bill, to improve its wording to avoid ambiguity, and to do what this Parliament is here to do during a Committee stage of a bill, which is not to set people on a course that inevitably involves enriching lawyers at some stage in the future.

The Tisch amendments are minor, and as I see them, quite uncontroversial. They are an attempt to improve the language. They do not try to change the policy. They do make it clear that what we are talking about is what most people would think of as builders’ or architects’ plans instead of all the other kinds of plans that there can be, and the other kinds of specifications, for that matter. I think the only reason the Minister can genuinely offer for opposing that amendment instead of welcoming it, and endorsing it, is simple arrogance of office—the pride that says “We can’t learn anything until we’ve been humiliated the way we have been on the Building Act.”

I am surprised that this Minister, who does not have the natural arrogance of the Minister in charge of the Building Act, Mr Carter, does not simply say “We will look to it.” Why not reorder the business, give the Parliament a couple of hours, look at those words, and recognise that. If it is really too excruciating to have a National Party amendment approved by United Future, the Greens, and the rest of the Parliament, then put in a Government amendment to do it. Handwrite it. We will not care. ACT will vote for it as long as it improves the legislation. That would be satisfying. It would be satisfying for this Parliament if we improved it. But to simply stand there and scoff at a clarification without saying why it would do harm is not a responsible position for a Minister to take.

I ask that the new clause 7(1A) the Government has put in, in reversal of the considered work of the select committee, be modified as proposed by Lindsay Tisch from National, because the Parliament ought to have more care, when promoting legislation, that it will not be simply a picnic for lawyers at some time in the future.

In terms of “overseas agency”, the least embarrassing course would be to take Mr Tisch’s proposal and simply drop those words. It is embarrassingly vague. “Overseas agency” sounds like al-Qaeda’s public relations firm. An “overseas agency” could be anything. It is an undefined term, and we could remove it. I think “overseas agency” could be left, but the Minister would be far better to replace that term with a reference to New Zealand universities, so that we know that what is intended is “BArch”, or whatever the term is that the university confers to show that someone has spent the time and qualified in architecture in New Zealand. That, of course, would mean that 40 percent of New Zealanders who choose not to become registered architects within the institute would not then be tempted to find their convenient “overseas agency” through which to exercise their loophole powers, or to find a way through a loophole.

Mr Tisch also mentioned that there were requirements in other law for people to state their qualifications—for example, in prospectuses. Prospectuses quite often set out plans or diagrams. A prospectus for a unit trust to fund a shopping centre will have a plan and it will be in connection with the building. The prospectus requirement under the securities regulations is that one must put one’s qualification. As subclause (2) stands, any foreign designer could put his or her architecture qualification, but it would appear that a New Zealand qualified architect could not, irrespective of whether he or she is a member. It just seems that the Minister is being offered a way out and is not taking it.

MIKE WARD (Green) : Do I think that there is likely to be any confusion over the term “architect”? No, I do not. If a software architect used the term he or she would put “software” in front of it. If a landscape architect used it, he or she would put “landscape” in front of it. If a software architect wants to design buildings, he or she cannot use the word “architect” on its own. “Architect” on its own has a well-understood meaning: it means somebody who builds buildings—someone who designs buildings and supervises their construction. It is very clear on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter that anyone who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings may use the title “architect”. Anyone who does those things is a registered architect, provided he or she has the qualifications and is registered. That is fairly clear.

We have been told that although the words “overseas agencies” are used, they do not preclude New Zealand architects from using their qualifications. It does not indicate, however, that because people have “BArch” after their name, they are necessarily the kinds of people who have the expertise to design a building that will keep out the weather and do all the things we would expect of it. It just means that they have the basic qualifications—that they have been to university for the required length of time and sat the examinations. That is the beginning. Normally, it takes a great deal more experience than that to design buildings, and that experience can be gained in an architect’s office.

The term “draws” is not free from ambiguities. We draw up plans for all sorts of things. So putting the term “draws” instead of “prepares” would not really clear up any ambiguities at all. There are ambiguities only if the term “prepares plans” is divorced from the rest of the description of “… prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings…”. People may use the title of “architect” provided they have the appropriate qualifications and provided they are registered.

It is important that people who want buildings to be designed for them go to the kind of people who have the appropriate qualifications. We are not talking just about buildings that keep out the weather; we are also talking about buildings that are safe. I think of the building that I spend a great deal of my life in these days.

Stephen Franks: The bill doesn’t state that we have to use an architect.

MIKE WARD: One does not have to. But if a person has any sense at all, he or she will go to somebody who has the appropriate qualifications. I would suggest that anybody who simply relies on the terms “architect” or “registered architect” as the sole reason for going to somebody really needs to do a reality check. I would hope that someone would go and look at the work that the person had done before, check out his or her credentials in terms of experience, and go to somebody who had a track record that could be relied on. The terms “registered architect” and “architect” are a measure of protection, but, of course, a client would need to do more than to simply rely on that term.

I will not be supporting Lindsay Tisch’ amendments. I looked at them and checked out just what is in the bill. It is fairly clear that those amendments are not necessary.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : I think there is common ground among all parties, including the Government, on this measure, and that is that the intention is that the proposed wording “prepares plans and specifications for buildings,” in new subclause (1A) of clause 7, on Supplementary Order Paper 354, is confined to architectural plans and specifications. It is not intended to have a broader definition that goes beyond that. That is the intention of the Government, the Minister, and the Opposition parties, and certainly it is my intention. The argument is simply whether the wording that is there achieves that end, or needs some modification such as that proposed by the National Party in Lindsay Tisch’s amendment, which would change “prepares plans and specifications” to “draws plans and prepares specifications”.

Firstly, I express my appreciation to the Minister for making his officials available to talk with me at length during the tea hour to discuss that. I know that it is not a matter of the Minister taking an arrogant line and being a stick in the mud; he is taking advice from his officials, and his officials are the ones who really need to be convinced about this, but I was not able to do that during the tea hour.

However, I should clarify for the sake of the debate that “building” has a far broader definition than simply walls and a roof. Section 7 of the Building Act states that it also includes mechanical, electrical, or other systems, a fence, a vehicle or motor vehicle, a mast pole or a telecommunication aerial, a cable car, and any two or more buildings that, on completion, are intended to be managed as one building. That is the extent of the definition. The definition is far broader, in terms of the Building Act.

Notwithstanding that, we are talking about construction and we are looking at the issue in that context. That is probably the critical thing; we are looking at the question of preparing plans and specifications in the context of new clause 7(1A), which states: “No person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of building may use the term title ‘architect’ … ”. That in itself, firstly, confines us, in terms of what we are talking about, to architectural-type work; to work that is commonly understood to be architectural work, and not work that is outside that—and I think landscape architecture is one example of that that has been mentioned.

Also, the term “prepares plans and specifications for buildings,” would be read by any court as a whole. The three words “plans and specifications” are read together, and they are defined, again, in the Building Act as meaning “the drawings, specifications, and other documents according to which a building is proposed to be constructed, altered, demolished, or removed:”. To some extent, to try to take “prepares plans” out of that context, and to say that it could be read outside the context of both this subclause and the definition of “plans and specifications” in the Building Act, is not realistic in terms of the way that the court will approach it.

The question is really whether National’s amendment will actually improve the situation. One of the things I note is that by separating out the words “plans and specifications” so that they no longer operate as a unit, and making the phrase “draws plans and prepares specifications”, we may be creating more problems than we are resolving. That will make “plans” a separate unit, distinct from specifications, because the amendment states “draws plans” then “prepares specifications”, as opposed to “prepares plans and specifications”. That may in fact create more problems. There is also the issue as to what the phrases “prepares plans” and “draws plans” actually mean. For example, could one say that a landscape architect actually draws a plan? One might argue that he or she does indeed draw a plan—and prepares a plan, as well. So does the word “draws” actually solve the problem for us?

I am not too sure that this amendment would actually correct the perceived problem. Therefore, I am a little ambivalent in my own mind as to whether the amendment ought to be supported. I do have a concern that “prepares plans” could be construed, particularly by the Registered Architects’ Board, as allowing a very broad-brush approach to be taken, and that it could abuse it for its own ends in terms of protecting the industry. At the end of the day, that can be challenged in the court and it would take only one court ruling to do that. So although I have some sympathy for the change, and had in fact intended to support it, I am not sure, firstly, that it does solve the problem, and, secondly, I am concerned that it may actually make the situation worse by dividing up the phrase “plans and specifications”, and separating the words out as not actually flowing together. On balance, I will not support the amendment, despite having the freedom to do that.

In terms of the second amendment—and I have heard what Mr Franks has said—I think the difficulty Mr Franks has is that he is overlooking the fact that new clause 7(2) on Supplementary Order Paper 354 states “in accordance with the rules”, and he has admitted that he is not quite sure what “in accordance with the rules” means. But “in accordance with the rules” is an obvious reference to clause 67(2) of the bill, which provides for the board to make “rules that govern all of the following matters:”, and paragraph (b) of which states: “the form of words, initials, and abbreviations that must be used if the title ‘registered architect’ (or words, initials, or abbreviations of that title to which section 7(1)(b) applies) is used in representing qualifications or titles awarded by overseas agencies”. It seems to me that what is happening here is that there is already provision for the use of the terms as far as New Zealand qualifications are concerned. That is clearly covered in the bill, in clause 7(1) as it stands, and new subclause (2) is to cover the situation of qualifications outside New Zealand. Paragraph (a) of clause 67(2) governs the ability to set up rules to say how the abbreviations can be used in the New Zealand context, and paragraph (b) states that the board can set up rules in terms of how the words, initials, and abbreviations can be used in regard to overseas qualifications.

So it does seem to me that including the words “in accordance with the rules” gives quite a lot of scope for the board actually to determine what is acceptable when it is looking at overseas qualifications, and the limits to which that can be used. That, no doubt, would include looking at the overseas agency concerned, and how that should be able to be expressed. So there is some sense in new subclause (2) of clause 7; it does not need the amendments that National and ACT are proposing, because of the context of clause 67(2).

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : I am grateful to have been referred to clause 67 by Mr Smith, which does indeed provide the board with an instruction to make rules. I think he is correct that the reference to rules in clause 7 probably contemplates those rules—although I think it would have been better drafting practice if that had been defined either in clause 4 or in clause 7 itself. But I certainly do not think that clause 67 puts the board into a position whereby it can write rules that exclude overseas agencies without the possibility of a very good fight in court.

I am not trying to debate Part 3, but I am saying that in the context we have, clause 67 expressly preserves forms of words that are outside the forms that are approved by the rules to represent a person. It states: “(without limiting any others that may be used consistently with this Act)”. I have no doubt that because of the term “overseas agency”, someone will at least argue that his or her overseas qualification is one that he or she may use, because it is consistent with the intent of clause 7, which is not to prevent people from accurately describing their qualifications.

This is the problem that happens when the Government ignores the work of a select committee that has gone through and seen that the most rational framework would be one that accepts the same limitations that other professions have accepted, and decided that the word “registered” should go ahead. I do not think the Green argument that people who are software architects will put “software architect” or landscape architects will put “landscape architect”, helps very much because I am not confident that that does not still constitute a breach. The protection clause simply states that it is “words, initials, or abbreviations … that are intended to cause, or that may reasonably cause, any person to believe that the person using those words, initials, or abbreviations is a registered architect.” If one calls oneself a landscape architect, one is still claiming to be an architect, and of course it will be in connection with buildings. Just about any big project now has a landscape component.

I am looking at this as I suspect lay people will look at it, because ACT members were not represented on the committee and we did not go through the reasoning that the committee members reached. They came out saying that they were comfortable, for example, that the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement would work, because a registered architect in New Zealand would equate to similar requirements of the equivalent profession in Australia. Now, of course they will not. By succumbing to Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s eloquent lobbying, the Government, United Future, and the Greens are now saying that it will not be equivalent to the requirements in Australia. So there is nothing to tell us that the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement will still be as neat a fit.

It may be that the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, can rebut that. There may be facts that are not obvious, but the problem is that the Supplementary Order Paper does not have the same kind of explanation that the select committee made to explain what it was doing. At the very least, it would help the courts in future if the Minister would make a statement to rebut any inference that the rules in clause 67(2) will not be comprehensive. If they are comprehensive, then that may assist the court. The statement should also explain exactly what it is the Minister thinks an architecture graduate from a New Zealand university can do about his or her qualification, when he or she is engaged in something connected with building. Does the Minister think graduates can use the term “BArch”? Does the Minister think their letterhead can state “Graduate Architect”, or words to that effect? That is what the bill does not tell us.

After all this time, I think the public, architects, and the customers of architects are entitled to expect that they could look at the bill and know the answers to those questions. I do not know those answers.

MIKE WARD (Green) : If landscape architects or software architects want to set themselves up to design buildings, prepare plans and specifications for buildings, or supervise the construction of buildings, then they may not use the title “architect”, because it is quite clear that the proposed amendment to clause 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 354 reserves that title for people who are registered as architects and who have the appropriate qualifications as architects. No one else can use that title. If people go along to a landscape architect or a software architect to get their house designed, then they probably deserve what they get. It is very clear in this bill that that term is reserved. The provision is phrased: “(1A) No person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings may use the title “architect” unless he or she is a registered architect.” That is very, very clear to me.

Stephen Franks: So what do they do with their qualification? What do they do with their degree?

MIKE WARD: Their qualifications are guaranteed by the fact that they are registered. Clearly, a person will not get registered if he or she is a landscape architect or software architect.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to the amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter be agreed to:

to omit from proposed new subclause (1A) the word “prepares”, and substitute the words “draws plans and prepares specifications”.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. When the Clerk calls: “Any other votes?”, is that the time that a member who wants to have a vote recorded personally and separately from the party vote would speak up?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Was it within the member’s ACT vote?

STEPHEN FRANKS: No, it is just that Mrs Pettis made a speech against this Supplementary Order Paper before the meal break, and I thought that with 51 votes cast, hers might have been the missing Labour vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, that is not a point of order. The parties call it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): This debate includes debate on schedule 1.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : On this part, in which there are a whole host of establishment issues, I would like to hear from the Minister as to why the Registered Architects’ Board is being left with such a relatively lean set of instructions, requirements, and specifications, when this same Government seems to have decided that the more up to date model of professional regulation, as it appears in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill, requires hundreds of pages. When I look at it, I see that the model looks reasonably self-contained and adequate, so I am not criticising it, but I think the Minister could take a call to explain. It is so elegant. The functions are set out very briefly—the powers relating to members, the composition of the board, the criteria for appointment to the board, and the committees are all set out in the way one would expect of a tradesman-like drafting job.

This part sets out, in about 10 pages, pretty much all the provisions of a regulatory regime for a self-regulating organisation to maintain and oversee quality standards. I commend the Government and the officials responsible. As far as I can see, it is a framework that pretty much does what one would expect an architects board and a registration body to do. I would, nevertheless, be very pleased if the Minister could explain whether any particular efficiency has been achieved. Has something been missed because it was seen as superfluous to architects? Is there a view that architects are not as important as lawyers? It is odd.

Health and safety depends on what architects do. Buildings collapse in countries that do not have high standards of design. Two hundred people were squashed in Bangladesh last night, presumably because a building was not built to a very high standard. I am surmising, but it is the kind of thing that happens. I would be a little disappointed if this bill were as lean and spare as it is simply because of the view that what architects do is less important than what lawyers do.I cannot help but compare it, as a model of regulation, with what the Government has proposed in the hundreds of clauses and vast, expanded specified provisions to govern what used to be the lawyers self-regulatory organisation.

I am also interested in the relationship between the board and the Minister. Clause 59 states that the board must provide an annual report to the Minister, showing the audit. The Auditor-General must audit but the bill does not actually give the Minister the powers, as I see it, to turn round and dictate to the board how it is to exercise its powers. That might be qualified by the fact that clause 69 states that the Minister must approve the rules that are proposed by the board. I think that is a shame. I think it would have been far better if this part of the legislation had set up the opportunity for there to be more than one board, that boards should be competing to attract architects to them and to uphold high standards, and to make sure that their standards are recognised by the market as adding value. That would have been a better safeguard for standards than to have the Minister’s approval of the rules. The temptation under clause 69, of course, is for a Minister to make sure that no one can ever accuse the Minister of having disregarded anything that might relate to a consumer interest. Of course, they then gold-plate the rules or they hold them up, out of fear that someone will hold them responsible later. I think clause 69 is bad in principle for an organisation that should be taking full responsibility for quality standards in a profession.

I hope the Minister can answer those two questions. Firstly, why is this so simple and elegant compared with the other professional regulation measure before us? Secondly, why is the Minister reserving the power to, in effect, second-guess or overrule decisions of the board? I imagine that this is a comfort to the officials. Clause 69(3) states: “The Minister must not approve a rule unless the Minister is satisfied that the rule is consistent with the rules that apply to other related building occupations.” I am not sure what kind of consistency is contemplated there. It would have been understandable if it stated: “… unless the Minister is satisfied that the rule is consistent with the requirements for public safety”, or something that was an overriding concern that the Minister had to look out for. But when the clause states: “… consistent with the rules that apply to other related building applications”, what is meant by “consistent”? Is it consistent in terms of fees payable, drafting style, penalties, coverage? What consistency is required? Most of it could be utterly irrelevant. Does the term “related building occupations” include plumbers or electricians? Is that the new Building Act? What is meant there, given that it refers broadly to rules? Does this assume that the definition of “rule” is not the definition that Mr Murray Smith said was the definition in this Act—namely, the rules under clause 67? This assumes that other building occupations have rules that are parallel to the rules under clause 67. I have no idea.

There is nothing in the commentary that states that other related building occupations will have rules that are familiar. It may well be that the Minister runs into blocking action by someone who does not like the rules, who will be able to stand up and point to a building occupation that does not have a rule that is parallel to the rule proposed by the architects. Then the Minister and the architects are once again spending thousands of dollars and time on lawyers, because of clumsy work done upfront.

I think it is simply because the Ministers here decide they want a finger in every pie. The rules of a profession being approved by the Minister actually mean that the profession has lost its pride. It also means that instead of having that nice balance, which a profession must always monitor, between the interests of its clients and the interests of the people who are the clients of those clients—that is, the interests of the public, those who use architects, and the interests of the architects themselves—we get politics coming in. People can lobby the Minister. Instead of bothering to persuade all their peers, instead of going through the expertise available to the professional body, they can short-circuit it, they can employ a Sir Geoffrey Palmer who comes and talks to the Minister, scares the Minister politically, and then we have either a veto or an argument between the Minister and the professional body.

That is the area of Part 3 that ought to be the embarrassment to the profession. Instead of the profession spending all the thousands it must have spent on Sir Geoffrey Palmer to do the lobbying, it would have been far better if it had spent that time and money on making the case for the profession to be truly accountable for its own rules, instead of subjecting them to a politician.

I think there are some safeguards there. Clause 69(3) states: “The Minister must not approve a rule unless the Minister is satisfied the rule is consistent with the rules that apply to other related building occupations.” The only element of safeguard there is that if there is a silly rule in place they all have to have the same silly rule, and if there is a good rule in place they will all have that rule. But what if there is no rule? How can it be consistent when there is a simple absence? There are quite a few building-related occupations that simply will not have this structure of rules. I think it is a carelessness. I hope the Minister can reassure me that he has in mind a whole set of rules for all the other building occupations; at least that will make this one work.

Judith Collins: Law.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Law is a building-related occupation; certainly, conveyancing is. I do not think the rules here will be consistent with the rules they are preparing for lawyers. I do not know whether Mrs Collins can think what the building-related occupation rules are. It would be plumbers, electricians—

Judith Collins: Plasterers, roofers.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Yes, and carpenters, master builders.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 3 be agreed to.
• Amendments agreed to, and Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts), on behalf of the Minister for Building Issues: I move, That the Registered Architects Bill be now read a third time. I am pleased to begin the bill’s final passage through the House, as this bill represents the balanced path for the regulation of architects that both industry and consumers have been seeking.

The debate in the Committee stage was very interesting, and I want to applaud Murray Smith for his clear exposition of why clause 7(1A) of Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the Minister’s name should stand. He hit the nail exactly on the head when he put together the “prepares plans and specifications” provision in respect of buildings. The three things should be read together. We had some debate in the House that people who were architects of a financial plan were somehow going to be covered by this bill. This bill is about buildings, so Mike Ward was exactly on the money, as well.

Dail Jones: No, this bill is about architects.

Hon RICK BARKER: Architects—yes, that is right. The second thing I want to do is to reassure members of the ACT party who were concerned about the title “overseas agencies”. The whole purpose of the part was to be able to make a distinction between qualifications people have as academic qualifications, and qualifications they have as professional qualifications. People will be able to use their titles in relation to architecture if they have qualifications from an overseas university. They will be able to write about them and say they have them, but they will not be able to put those forward as if they were professional qualifications unless they are consistent with the rules provided under this legislation, and therefore registered. So the bill is making a very clear distinction. I want to reassure the ACT party that people will be able to write about and have their qualifications relating to architecture on letterheads and otherwise, providing they are not putting those forward as if they were professional qualifications—unless they are registered and compliant with the legislation. The bill is making a clear distinction, which I think the member Stephen Franks has missed.

This is a very good bill, which has been around for a long time. I thank Stephen Franks for his comments on the symmetry of the bill. I am sure its writer, Margaret Wilson, would be very pleased to hear his comments of admiration.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : During the Committee stage I listened to Rick Barker’s explanation of the definition “architect”. Although it was imaginative, I find myself in agreement with the Tisch amendments and with the comments and contribution made by Stephen Franks, in particular. It is easy in this environment to be certain about what the term means. It is easy to dismiss the concerns of Mr Franks and Mr Tisch with a wave of the hand and a “Don’t be silly; that will never happen.” attitude. Well, I recall similar assurances being made about the foreshore and seabed legislation. We heard: “Don’t worry, that will never happen.” We were told that the issue would never be back in the courts. We were told that the Māori Land Court would never make a determination that would make life difficult for members of Parliament—because the bill passed with such complete certainty! There was no equivocation or ambiguity. [Interruption] New Zealand First! That is right, the legal mind of Dail Jones has already been questioned by Judge Williams.

I find myself wanting to conclude National’s remarks in the third reading debate on the Registered Architects Bill by saying that, yes, we support this bill, but not without reservations, in particular those contained in the Tisch amendments. We are concerned about the fact that this Government’s view of how others will interpret legislation does not affect the way the courts may, do, or will interpret legislation, and it is the height of arrogance to assume that the legislation is so unambiguous, so certain, and so clear that it will not be questioned. So although Rick Barker stands and makes dismissive gestures about examples of the word “architect” being used to describe those in other professions or trades who may have incorporated that word into their titles, the proof will be in the pudding. Mr Tisch made a contribution to try to clarify some of those issues. That contribution was dismissed outright by this Government, and time will tell whether the Tisch amendments were right or wrong.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : New Zealand First supports this legislation and the Supplementary Order Paper that has come through. If the Tisch amendments had been passed, I believe they would create a great deal of ambiguity and confusion in the courts, which is the reason why New Zealand First would not support them. Of course, any matter that comes before this House and provides for, say, an appeal to the District Court, as this bill does, may end up in the District Court. I say to all those people who wish to go and see lawyers, whether they are the 17 people from Ōpōtiki who cannot understand an Act that states that the Crown owns the foreshore and seabed as its absolute property—

Hon Dover Samuels: That’s one group that can’t understand it.

DAIL JONES: And there is only one other group that cannot understand it—Dr Brash’s group. The Crown owns the foreshore and seabed as its absolute property. That is clear to everyone in New Zealand, other than to 17 people in Ōpōtiki. Well, I say to people who want to go to court, only one word—“breed”.

Darren Hughes: “Breed” or “breathe”?

DAIL JONES: Breed—because lawyers love people who want to fight cases that they will lose. It is a lawyer’s dream. So I tell those people to breed, and I say to Dr Brash “Breed.”, if that is what he believes about the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

However, I come back to this bill. Of course people can go to court. That is the right New Zealanders have. It is their right under the Magna Carta to go to court. It is their right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and under all the various legislation that goes back to before there were Māori in New Zealand. It is people’s right to go to court and be judged by their peers. Nothing in this bill stops that from happening. Nothing in any legislation ever stops that from happening. Whether they win, of course, is another matter, and, as a lawyer, I say to them: “Just breed.”

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : The ACT party has voted for the Registered Architects Bill for the reason that, on balance, it probably does more desirable things than undesirable things. But it is such a shame to have to support something reluctantly, because, with a little bit of approval and a bit of commitment to quality in legislation, we could have had something that was far more satisfying. In this case, “satisfying” would simply have meant law about which the Minister could answer simple questions without confusing us more than we already were.

The Minister tried to answer a question when he began the third reading debate. He said that, yes, of course people will be able to use their professional qualification on their letterhead, as long as, in relation to building—and I think I am paraphrasing him correctly—it does not purport to be their qualification for building. The words were something to that effect. It was quite a long sentence that essentially said: “Yes, you can use your degree; yes, you can put your degree on the letterhead, as long as it is not in connection with a building and implying expertise in building.” Well, what else is a degree in architecture? So does that mean that they can or they cannot put their degree on the letterhead? We do not know, and the reason we do not know is that the Minister would have had all those whisperings in his ear from the officials behind him, busy telling him “Yes” on the one hand and “No” on the other hand, and he ended up as confused as we predict the court will be when it tries to make head or tail of what New Zealand First, the Greens, and United Future have now colluded with Labour to pass.

The other opportunity I should take at this stage is to explain why we are voting for this bill, despite having voted against the first schedule. We voted against the first schedule simply to record, for the sake of consistency, that we believe in one law for all. We do not, unlike the other parties in the House, justify race discrimination on the grounds that it might be well intentioned. ACT is against race discrimination. ACT is against “the soft bigotry of low expectations”—I think that is the phrase. We can see in the first schedule to this legislation that the New Zealand Registered Architects’ Board, of all bodies, is directed, as a specific requirement as a good employer, to recognise the aims and aspirations of Māori, the employment requirements of Māori, and the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the board. So what is that, a quota? Does that mean that the Registered Architects’ Board now has to go out and find some token Māori because this Parliament is telling it that it must recognise the need for the involvement of Māori as employees of the board? What a patronising piece of law. What a piece of bigotry. It is bigotry because it has such low expectations that Māori need Parliament to instruct the Registered Architects’ Board that they must be employed. What a pathetic piece to be sticking into law in this country in 2005.

The rest of this Parliament, as it does, solemnly voted in favour of those provisions. ACT is proud that we do not vote for this stuff. We actually read the law. We think that quality matters and that principles are only principles if one sticks to them consistently. Just because there is an architects body out there and it is election time, and greasing around and throwing baubles at tiny segments of the electorate is the fashion, it does not mean we should be voting for provisions as patronising as these. The need for the board to be a good employer—

Steve Chadwick: It’s what they wanted.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I will tell the member why they wanted it—presumably “they” being the representatives of the architects. They probably told the Government that they would go along with these nonsense words because they knew this Government to be full of people who would not advance the legislation unless they did. They probably feared, knowing what this Government is like, that unless they came up with this kind of twaddle and stuck in this stuff that compels the board to employ Māori, that the cabal—how did John Tamihere describe them—of lesbians, and the rest of it, would not let them get their legislation through. Is that what the member for Rotorua is really saying when she tells us that the architects wanted to be told that they must employ Māori? They would employ Māori because Māori were competent. They would employ Māori because they presented as the best person for the job. That is what any employer would do. Employers do not come along and say to Parliament: “Please order me to employ Māori.” If the member would care to look at clause 38—

Steve Chadwick: I was on the committee.

STEPHEN FRANKS: The member is telling us that she was on the committee. Did they actually come before the committee and say: “Please instruct us to employ Māori?”. How did they word it? What did they say? They are not my words. The member was shrieking at me: “That’s what they wanted! That’s what they asked for!” Who were they, and what did they ask for? Did they ask for clause 38(2)(d) in schedule 1, which tells them that they must recognise the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the board? Clause 38(2) in schedule 1 requires that the board must recognise the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the board, and the aims and aspirations and cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups. What is this? Does the Registered Architects’ Board have to employ someone who understands tepee building, gers, or Mongolian yurts? What are these Māori reference words doing in legislation to set up the board to register architects? How do they recognise the cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups on the Registered Architects’ Board?

Judith Collins: Ask Mr Choudhary. He will know.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Mrs Collins says that Mr Choudhary will know. There may be someone else in the Chamber who was on the select committee, because we are now being told that that is what the architects asked for. I really would like to know how they—

Steve Chadwick: That’s not what I said. I said they are very happy with it.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Oh, now they did not ask for it. Now I understand that they are very happy with it. Of course they would be happy if they had a couple of spiky-haired people with big dangly earrings telling them: “You be happy with this or we won’t advance your bill. You just show joy or it won’t go through.” I think that is the sort of thing we are hearing. We are hearing that there was a bit of a stand-over of the architects board. They were told: “You be very, very happy. Dance, or we will not put your bill through.” It is interesting, is it not. It is really very, very strange.

There is a bit more here too that I had not noticed. The board has to recognise “the employment requirements of persons with disabilities.” The regulations already require ramps and toilets for disabled people. What more can the architects registration board do to recognise the employment requirements of persons with disabilities? This is PC nonsense.

Judith Collins: It’s the sort of thing John Tamihere railed against.

STEPHEN FRANKS: It does sound like the sort of thing John Tamihere has been railing about. I can understand how sickening it must have been sitting in Cabinet when he was required to sign up to this sort of thing. What it does not explain to me—sure, John Tamihere has blown the whistle on the Labour Cabinet—is why the rest of Parliament voted for this. Why, on schedule 1, was the 113 to7? I think that it should not have been just ACT saying that this kind of nonsense does not need to be put in the law. I would expect National to vote against this schedule. I would expect New Zealand First to vote against it. New Zealand First has very recently discovered that it has votes in relation to principles of the treaty. It now manages to vote against bills that refer to those principles. What about voting against bills that tell the Registered Architects’ Board that it has to involve Māori as employees of the board, because that is patronising pap?

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : I begin by congratulating the New Zealand Registered Architects’ Board and the profession of architects on achieving their new bill after 40 years, replacing their 1963 Act and bringing them into a form of governance that is of a more contemporary nature. I know they have waited a long time for it, and I guess that once they saw the bill come out of the select committee they thought they were getting close, only to have to sit on their hands for a number of months before it finally came to the House. But the bill is here tonight and it will be passed tonight, and no doubt they will have a cocktail party of their own to celebrate.

I must agree with Stephen Franks’ comparison of this bill with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill and agree that this bill is succinct at 87 clauses. It is something more of the sort of ilk we would expect in terms of a Government bill regulating a profession. Certainly, it makes the 380 clauses in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill look ponderous, complex, and way over the top, as I have said previously. I guess the architects have to be congratulated on having a modest-sized bill come through the House. I would only like to see lawyers achieve the same result at the end of the day.

This bill is about setting standards in terms of architecture, but it is important, in relation to the new provision for standards, educational qualifications, and things this bill now implements, that the Registered Architects’ Board, as it now is, does not continue with the reputation it has for being a bit of an old boys’ club and for being restrictive. I know that there is some concern out there from some quarters that there is a degree of patch protection as far as architects are concerned.

I think it is important for the good of the profession as a whole, and for the whole building industry in fact, that architects have an inclusive organisation that tries to foster difference within its midst. It may well be that architects need to look at different standard qualifications in terms of architecture, to accommodate some of the people who have architectural degrees but who want to work more in a fringe area than in the main areas of high-rise buildings, commercial buildings, and buildings with other complicated designs. It is important, if the registered architects’ profession wants to maintain a broad membership, that it can accommodate the needs of its members, both at the highest levels and at lower levels. I would encourage it to do that. Certainly, at the Government Administration Committee we heard from architectural draftspeople and others who are working in areas on the fringes of strict architectural work, and we heard their concerns about where they fitted within the industry. I will commend to the Registered Architects’ Board that it tries to take an inclusive approach, but I recognise that it does have to set some minimum standards.

This legislation, as I said in my second reading speech, ties in very much with the Building Act, and with the licensed building practitioner regime. There will be a design group there, and the indications within this legislation in terms of its facilitation, which allows the Minister to delegate functions to it, are that the board will be looked to in order for it to play an important role in relation to design practitioners, under the licensed building practitioner regime, and in setting standards for that group—at least in a consultative way, if not also in a way that involves the assessment of practitioners in terms of the various categories of design. I think the board could make an important contribution in that area, but if it is to do that, it is important that it takes the inclusive approach I was referring to earlier.

I congratulate the board on achieving this milestone of a new Act, and wish the board well for its future as it implements the Act, sees it bedding down, and furthers the interests of its own profession.

• Bill read a third time.