Adams Paul: Architects Bill — First Reading 
Adams Paul: Architects Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9767] 
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.