Barker Rick: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19924] 
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.