Catchpole Brent: Architects Bill — First Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Architects Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9764] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The Architects Bill continues the registration regime replacing the current 1963 Act. That Act has been around for 40 years and is long overdue for an upgrade but not for a complete upgrade. The most important part of the upgrade in this bill is really to do with the fines: increasing the maximum fine from $200 which was probably quite a lot of money 40 years ago to a figure of $5000. That will probably hit the pocket of an architect who is out of line with the industry and who therefore probably deserves to be hit in that way. 
One of the issues we would like to explore in this bill is that people who are already members of the Institute of Architects and registered under the 1963 Act are to be automatically registered under the new legislation. Although they are deemed to be registered under the new Act they have to re-register prior to 30 June 2007. Existing architects are subject to the new legislation in full from the time it comes into effect on 1 July 2005 but they must re-register. We cannot understand that. Why do they have to re-register even though their registration has rolled over and they are covered by the new legislation? I cannot work out the reason for that provision. When the existing registration of architects is transferred over they fall under the requirements of this new legislation and those requirements provide that they comply with the legislation and the ongoing competency examinations to ensure that they are up to date with changes in design methods so that they know the design methods that are coming through and can identify them and use them in their building designs. 
The idea of re-registration was brought about by the weathertight homes inquiry. During that inquiry it was discovered that there was a wide range of causes of the problem and I would suggest that the competency of architects was not one of the major ones. The problem of leaky homes and what have you was not necessarily the result of ongoing incompetence in the practices of architects. Instead it was a combination of the Building Act a building code that encouraged design innovation and a climate of rapid development and cost cutting combined with the unexpected results of mixing newly introduced materials. Those results were unexpected and I do not believe that any amount of competency examination or ongoing training would have made any difference to the weathertight homes problem. 
After all the Building Industry Authority and the Building Research Association of New Zealand which are both responsible for monitoring testing and approving the use of new materials approved practices such as the mixing of monolithic cladding with untreated timber. Why therefore should any architect having been told that those materials were OK to use together be sceptical of that whether or not he or she had had any additional training? The Building Industry Authority refused to acknowledge that there was a developing problem during that time even though it was presented with examples of the rotting timber and the problems with leaks and also with numerous reports from overseas that confirmed a major problem was developing. I cannot see that the ongoing testing of architects for competency would have made any difference whatsoever in that situation. 
One major requirement we are asking for is that the Government and the select committee consider delaying the full passage of this bill until after the Building Bill has been fully considered and thought through. There are a number of issues within the Building Bill that could well affect this particular bill and I would hate to see the new Architects Bill pushed through the House and all of a sudden we discover after the Building Bill has been completed that this bill is out of step with that new legislation. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s why it’s going to the Government Administration Committee so that you can deal with that issue there. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I am pleased the Minister is saying that this bill will go through the Government Administration Committee. I am pleased she is saying that. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rodney Hide 
: Aren’t they rude? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: They are absolutely rude. They bleat all the time do they not? My request is that the House does not complete its consideration of this bill ahead of the Building Bill. The Minister is assuring me that because this bill is to be dealt with by the same select committee that is considering the Building Bill that will not happen. But because we have the Building Bill the building code will subsequently have to be revisited. I would hate to see this bill being superseded rapidly because of a change in the Building Bill and the new building code. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The building code has nothing to do with this bill. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The building code practices have everything to do with this bill. If architects do not understand the building code how can they possibly design a building that will fit in with and measure up to the required building code? The Minister is suggesting that we have a building code that is put around whatever is decided in this bill. The building code should be the measure that decides how people operate and how people build buildings. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: This bill is based on ongoing competency not 1 year’s competency and payment of an annual fee. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The Minister wants to carry on about competency and the annual fee so I will talk about the annual fee and the ongoing competency requirements. 
Those measures will add huge compliance costs because there will be a considerable increase in the requirement for architects to upgrade and update their skills and to prove that they have upgraded their skills on a regular basis so they continue to be qualified for registration as an architect. If they fail to continue to upgrade their skills they will fall foul of this legislation. That is great. That is important but it will cost an awful lot of money. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The architects want this bill. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Yes the Institute of Architects is pleased that this bill justifies the institute’s existing procedures because it already has an ongoing registration scheme and an ongoing training and competency scheme. But the preamble to the bill suggests that a lot of architects do not belong to the institute. 
I would suggest that most of them do. They are properly qualified. Architects are fully qualified members of the institute and they already have to be registered under the current Act. 
New Zealand First supports this bill going to the select committee.