Tisch Lindsay: Architects Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Architects Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19920] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to take a call on this bill which has been around for a long time. In fact I heard the Minister for Courts say in the opening address that this bill goes hand in hand with the Building Act. Well say no more! What have members spent most of today under urgency doing but trying to fix up some of the issues in the Building Act by way of legislation that does not bear any resemblance to the Building Act? 
I want to draw the House’s attention to what has been happening in other countries. A review of what happened with our closest neighbour Australia is significant. Our Government Administration Committee made a trip to Australia and information was supplied to us—and I took a particular interest in this matter—about a review of legislation regulating the architectural profession. It was a public inquiry. I think the points that came out of it are relevant for the debate we are having and for the legislation that we will be voting on shortly not to mention the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government has subsequently produced. 
It is interesting to note that architects have wanted a monopoly. That is why as Mr Catchpole has said they were quite horrified at suggestions that the term “architect” be replaced by “registered architect”. I note the architects’ submission to the select committee dated May 2004 on the proposal in the committee’s report to remove protection of the title “architect” and instead to protect the title “registered architect”. They stated: “The change has taken the architectural profession by surprise and it has provoked considerable shock and concern. There is widespread agreement within the profession that this will spell the end of the longstanding reputation of high standards and professionalism that architects have earned over the years and the end of consumer protection safeguard incorporated in the protection of the title ‘architect’.” 
That is what they said; here is their submission and that is what they said. But if we look at overseas experience we see that in Australia for example architects have only a very small share of the market for design of new residences. Usually residences are of a standard design or they are project homes. But even with large commercial projects architects face competition from specialist project engineers managers and non-architect designers. That is the nature of the business they are in. So the experience of other places would suggest that architects are having to compete more and more for their share of the market and what the architects in New Zealand are suggesting is that they need that monopoly protection. 
If we look at what the recommendation of the commission was we see that its report states that amendments “could improve current Architects Acts by reducing impediments to competition and promoting transparency and accountability of Architects Boards. In particular introduction of a two-tier system which freed up use of the generic title ‘architect’ (and its derivatives) and applied statutory certification only to a title such as ‘registered architect’…”. That is the Australian experience. 
That is one reason why the Government Administration Committee decided that “registered” is in fact a term that other professions use. Let us look at some of the numerous examples that have already been given. If we look in the  
Yellow Pages 
—at the accounting profession for example—we see that there are chartered accountants and accountants. There is clear separation between roles in such professions. If we look at the profession of which I am a member valuers we find that there are valuers chattel valuers plant and machinery valuers and—surprise surprise—registered valuers. So the term is commonplace. And there are other professions—some of which have been mentioned like engineers—in which there is a two-tier system that gives consumer protection. If we look at even the motor industry—and the member over there in the back row has an interest in that—we find motor vehicle dealers and licensed motor vehicle dealers. 
So having looked at those other professions we are saying to architects that they can stand on a pedestal in the role of registered architect but to say that one cannot be an architect in any other sense is absolutely and completely wrong because the word “architect” is generic. The dictionary entry for the word “architect” states it means a designer who prepares plans for buildings or ships or supervises their construction or a person who brings about a specific thing as in “the architect of his own fortune”—and it goes on and on. The point I make here is that “architect” is a generic term. For the building industry or people who prepare and design plans to say that only they can use the term “architect” is completely and utterly wrong. Another dictionary I looked at actually states that an architect is a person who plans devises or contrives the achievement of a desired result. So there may be software architects landscape architects financial architects conservation architects—I could go on and on. 
The point I make here is that National members are supporting the bill because those who sat around the select committee table represented various professions where there are already such tiers. Architects lawyers accountants and—as in my case—valuers have a two-tier system. 
One of the areas that we are concerned about—and this is a point the Minister made—is that we are not happy with the registration board approach. We have always subscribed to the view that we get the best results with a self-regulatory regime. If someone wants to be a member of an organisation let the organisation set the rules and conditions. Why should Parliament dictate how the profession operates? That is mentioned in our report as being an important factor. 
I want to bring to the House’s attention my amendment that changes very slightly some of the points made in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 354. Originally that Supplementary Order Paper was in John Tamihere’s hands. It has now of course been given to Chris Carter. When we look at the definitions in the Building Act we see that there is absolutely no correlation between them and the definitions in this bill but this bill was actually brought in at the time when we were debating the Building Bill. The bill before us has sat on the Order Paper for months and been moved around. I want clarification that will enable us when we come to debate the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper to tie in its intent with what is actually in the Building Act because the Minister and other speakers have said that the two go hand in hand. 
In the Building Act we have a definition of “plans and specifications”. It states that that term means: “drawings specifications and other documents according to which a building is proposed to be constructed altered demolished or removed…”. So there is a clear definition in the Building Act but there is no definition in the Architects Bill as to what a plan is or a specification is. 
The other question is what “architect” means. I have said it is a generic term that is used by many professions. The bill does not define the word “architect”. As a result the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 354 provides an explicit definition for the purposes of what is to be the Registered Architects Bill namely a “person who designs buildings prepares plans and specifications for buildings or supervises construction of buildings …”. If that is to be the definition of a registered architect then it is my view that the same definition should be in the Building Act. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Registered Architects Bill 
name changed to Registered Architects Bill 
.