Ardern Shane: Architects Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Architects Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19910] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I can understand your haste in wanting to move on Madam Speaker but there are a few comments the National Party wishes to make particularly in response to the Minister. Before I do that I welcome the newest member of Parliament Ms Soper whom I have not yet had a chance to acknowledge. I hope her time in this place although it will be brief will be enjoyable. Perhaps she may learn some lessons from her senior colleague the honourable John Tamihere on how to get promoted in this place and I wish her luck with the process. 
I come back to the Architects Bill and I say to the Minister who has just finished his speech Rick Barker that the reason why the National Party has suggested self-regulation rather than Government-imposed regulation is that more often than not that brings about the best outcome for all concerned. As the Minister said in his opening comments the whole process started with the Building Bill. We can see now what a circus that legislation has turned into what a mess the Government has made of it and how it has had no effect whatsoever on resolving the problems that came from the leaky houses situation we have in New Zealand because of the circus the Government created. With regard to the whole argument around whether architects should be described as “registered architects” or just “architects” it is our view—and always has been—that the best body to administer that regulation is the group itself whose members have the expertise the knowledge and the desire to see the right outcome. 
Architects were themselves caught up in the whole debate around leaky homes. The inquiries that took place into that issue suggested that the failures were systemic from design—which of course is the area where architects are involved—right through to monolithic cladding and untreated timber and the list goes on and on. Architects themselves were quite anxious to protect their brand and so they should be. Why should the Government—and this is the question that the Minister did not answer—step in and use a mighty big sledgehammer to crack a very small nut? Therefore National believes the regulation that the Minister is suggesting we should have supported is not necessary. 
This bill is very good legislation in the sense that it is simple it protects the brand “registered architect” and it gives architects the legislative framework that they have decided would be desirable. For that reason the National Party will support the bill going forward. I know that my colleague Lindsay Tisch has studied this issue substantially and he will bring forward a recommended change to the bill in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper. I am sure that the House once it has fully studied that Supplementary Order Paper will accept that it is very good and that it will pass rather than the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper. The numbers in support of National’s Supplementary Order Paper are getting stronger all the time. The Government should take note of that—and it should certainly take note of what Mr Tisch has to say about that—and pass Mr Tisch’s Supplementary Order Paper which the National Party will be voting for. 
I say also to the Minister that it would be helpful if in his contributions through the debate—if he or any other Labour member is prepared to make another contribution—he would explain to architects why the Government believes that they are not qualified to decide how to regulate themselves. As I recall matters architects themselves stated in their submissions that the best way to get the outcome the Government wanted was not to use a heavy hand—although the Government Administration Committee as the Minister rightly said suggested that increases in the fines should take place. There are now fines of up to $10000 for a variety of offences—up from $5000—and a range of other fines in the legislation. We think that that is the right approach. The Minister should explain to the industry why he thinks that his department or another Government department is in a much better position than architects or would have much more knowledge than them so as to dictate to that group what it should or should not do with regard to the registration of the industry. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Disgraceful. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is a fair question and the Minister seems to have a view on it. I would like the Minister to explain to us why that is so. There is no evidence to support that approach in most of those cases. 
If we look at the Building Act we see the mess that it has turned into. When central government dictates what “Joe Hard-worker”—the builder with the ute the dog and the radio—can do or even that if “Joe Hard-worker” as most hard-working Kiwis do buys a run-down house does it up himself on the weekend and allows it to become part of his growth plan in terms of equity it can dictate the way he must do that and that he must pay this expert and that expert to give him advice on how to do it then we end up with the exact opposite of the outcome we set out to try to achieve. It would be good if the Minister could enlighten the House as to how many leaky houses now coming through the inquiry that was set up by the Government are homes that have been renovated by the home-handyman kind of builder. Perhaps in the Minister’s seat of Tukituki there may be one. I have heard of none; I have seen none. I have asked for evidence that “Joe Hard-worker” and “Bob the builder” with their ute dog and radio caused that problem and I have seen none. I have seen absolutely no evidence to back that claim up. So I ask the Minister to take a call. I may be proven wrong but I have not been able to find one single case that could substantiate that argument. 
In the case of architects there are good ones bad ones registered ones and those who use the title of “architect” but who are not registered. Just like hiring or not hiring a master builder that is something the consumer must always have the right to decide on. If somebody has the skills and expertise to be an architect but does not have the necessary regulation—if that person is not cornered and driven into a high - end cost structure by a Government regulation but can still give the design work necessary to “Bob the builder” or the home-handyman renovator—then why should he or she not be allowed to do that? The Minister has not answered that question. 
National will support this bill because we believe that in its current form provided that it is not subject to the passing of any Supplementary Order Papers that the Government may subsequently bring forward it is good legislation.