Ward Mike: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Ward Mike: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19927] 
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.