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:19937] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party has voted for the Registered Architects Bill for the reason that on balance it probably does more desirable things than undesirable things. But it is such a shame to have to support something reluctantly because with a little bit of approval and a bit of commitment to quality in legislation we could have had something that was far more satisfying. In this case “satisfying” would simply have meant law about which the Minister could answer simple questions without confusing us more than we already were. 
The Minister tried to answer a question when he began the third reading debate. He said that yes of course people will be able to use their professional qualification on their letterhead as long as in relation to building—and I think I am paraphrasing him correctly—it does not purport to be their qualification for building. The words were something to that effect. It was quite a long sentence that essentially said: “Yes you can use your degree; yes you can put your degree on the letterhead as long as it is not in connection with a building and implying expertise in building.” Well what else is a degree in architecture? So does that mean that they can or they cannot put their degree on the letterhead? We do not know and the reason we do not know is that the Minister would have had all those whisperings in his ear from the officials behind him busy telling him “Yes” on the one hand and “No” on the other hand and he ended up as confused as we predict the court will be when it tries to make head or tail of what New Zealand First the Greens and United Future have now colluded with Labour to pass. 
The other opportunity I should take at this stage is to explain why we are voting for this bill despite having voted against the first schedule. We voted against the first schedule simply to record for the sake of consistency that we believe in one law for all. We do not unlike the other parties in the House justify race discrimination on the grounds that it might be well intentioned. ACT is against race discrimination. ACT is against “the soft bigotry of low expectations”—I think that is the phrase. We can see in the first schedule to this legislation that the New Zealand Registered Architects’ Board of all bodies is directed as a specific requirement as a good employer to recognise the aims and aspirations of Maori the employment requirements of Maori and the need for involvement of Maori as employees of the board. So what is that a quota? Does that mean that the Registered Architects’ Board now has to go out and find some token Maori because this Parliament is telling it that it must recognise the need for the involvement of Maori as employees of the board? What a patronising piece of law. What a piece of bigotry. It is bigotry because it has such low expectations that Maori need Parliament to instruct the Registered Architects’ Board that they must be employed. What a pathetic piece to be sticking into law in this country in 2005. 
The rest of this Parliament as it does solemnly voted in favour of those provisions. ACT is proud that we do not vote for this stuff. We actually read the law. We think that quality matters and that principles are only principles if one sticks to them consistently. Just because there is an architects body out there and it is election time and greasing around and throwing baubles at tiny segments of the electorate is the fashion it does not mean we should be voting for provisions as patronising as these. The need for the board to be a good employer— 
Steve Chadwick 
: It’s what they wanted. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I will tell the member why they wanted it—presumably “they” being the representatives of the architects. They probably told the Government that they would go along with these nonsense words because they knew this Government to be full of people who would not advance the legislation unless they did. They probably feared knowing what this Government is like that unless they came up with this kind of twaddle and stuck in this stuff that compels the board to employ Maori that the cabal—how did John Tamihere describe them—of lesbians and the rest of it would not let them get their legislation through. Is that what the member for Rotorua is really saying when she tells us that the architects wanted to be told that they must employ Maori? They would employ Maori because Maori were competent. They would employ Maori because they presented as the best person for the job. That is what any employer would do. Employers do not come along and say to Parliament: “Please order me to employ Maori.” If the member would care to look at clause 38— 
Steve Chadwick 
: I was on the committee. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The member is telling us that she was on the committee. Did they actually come before the committee and say: “Please instruct us to employ Maori?”. How did they word it? What did they say? They are not my words. The member was shrieking at me: “That’s what they wanted! That’s what they asked for!” Who were they and what did they ask for? Did they ask for clause 38(2)(d) in schedule 1 which tells them that they must recognise the need for involvement of Maori as employees of the board? Clause 38(2) in schedule 1 requires that the board must recognise the need for involvement of Maori as employees of the board and the aims and aspirations and cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups. What is this? Does the Registered Architects’ Board have to employ someone who understands tepee building gers or Mongolian yurts? What are these Maori reference words doing in legislation to set up the board to register architects? How do they recognise the cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups on the Registered Architects’ Board? 
Judith Collins 
: Ask Mr Choudhary. He will know. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mrs Collins says that Mr Choudhary will know. There may be someone else in the Chamber who was on the select committee because we are now being told that that is what the architects asked for. I really would like to know how they— 
Steve Chadwick 
: That’s not what I said. I said they are very happy with it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Oh now they did not ask for it. Now I understand that they are very happy with it. Of course they would be happy if they had a couple of spiky-haired people with big dangly earrings telling them: “You be happy with this or we won’t advance your bill. You just show joy or it won’t go through.” I think that is the sort of thing we are hearing. We are hearing that there was a bit of a stand-over of the architects board. They were told: “You be very very happy. Dance or we will not put your bill through.” It is interesting is it not. It is really very very strange. 
There is a bit more here too that I had not noticed. The board has to recognise “the employment requirements of persons with disabilities.” The regulations already require ramps and toilets for disabled people. What more can the architects registration board do to recognise the employment requirements of persons with disabilities? This is PC nonsense. 
Judith Collins 
: It’s the sort of thing John Tamihere railed against. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It does sound like the sort of thing John Tamihere has been railing about. I can understand how sickening it must have been sitting in Cabinet when he was required to sign up to this sort of thing. What it does not explain to me—sure John Tamihere has blown the whistle on the Labour Cabinet—is why the rest of Parliament voted for this. Why on schedule 1 was the 113 to7? I think that it should not have been just ACT saying that this kind of nonsense does not need to be put in the law. I would expect National to vote against this schedule. I would expect New Zealand First to vote against it. New Zealand First has very recently discovered that it has votes in relation to principles of the treaty. It now manages to vote against bills that refer to those principles. What about voting against bills that tell the Registered Architects’ Board that it has to involve Maori as employees of the board because that is patronising pap?