Brown Peter: Architects Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Architects Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19913] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 One is loath to criticise colleagues particularly colleagues who work fairly hard and diligently on a select committee but I have to say that in terms of this bill they got it wrong. They got the substance of the bill correct because the industry is supportive of the substance of the bill. But the bill as it stands now without the Supplementary Order Paper protects the term “registered architect” and leaves the word “architect” out there floating for anybody to use—effectively anybody. 
Before I had read the report back from the select committee I had architect friends contacting me and they were up in arms. They outlined in quite some detail who could or would be likely to use the term “architect”. In basic English an architect in the minds of most people is a person who designs buildings or modifications to buildings. When we think of an architect we do not think of a landscape architect or a software architect—I suggest most of us do not. Because these architects who approached me were so angry I did a little private survey asking many people what an architect was—just that one word. They all without exception said that an architect was a person who designed buildings. Most of them added: “I would have thought you were old enough to know that Peter!” after I asked the question. I told them I was asking for a genuine reason. 
I think this Supplementary Order Paper was initiated by Mr Tamihere. One has to say he has been getting a lot of flak recently but if it is true that he initiated it a degree of debt is owed to the honourable John Tamihere because without this Supplementary Order Paper this bill could go through protecting the term “registered architect” as against “architect”. 
New Zealand First is absolutely committed to protecting the term “architect” for people who design buildings. Of course they have to be up to a standard. When we say “buildings” we are talking about homes commercial buildings and what have you. But when it comes to homes it is the biggest investment by far that anybody makes. If a person has a home or commercial building designed by an architect that person wants to know that the architect is up to speed. So we want the architect to be registered to have gone through the necessary exams and to be kept up to speed with industry requirements. So it is very very important that an architect is actually an architect not somebody who has done half a course or has some ability in designing things. He or she must be a fully qualified architect. 
New Zealand First is keen to support the Supplementary Order Paper where protection is again offered to the words “registered architect” and “architect”. An architect in simple English language is a person who designs buildings and the term should be protected. I have to say that for that to escape the notice of the select committee is to do a huge disservice not only to architects but also to people who would use them. I believe that the Minister’s amendment which as I say I think was initiated by John Tamihere will bring the bill back into line and I am personally very very grateful that that has been undertaken. On that basis New Zealand First will support this bill.