Franks Stephen: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19932] 
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.