Catchpole Brent: Architects Bill — Second Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Architects Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19918] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Architects Bill because I took part in the select committee process for dealing with it. I was invited to the join the Government Administration Committee which was ably chaired by Dianne Yates and we did a very extensive examination of first of all the weathertight homes problem and the debacle that followed that. Then at the same time as the Building Bill was before that committee we examined the close relationship between the Architects Bill and the new Building Bill. It was during that process that we realised there was a need to link the two pieces of legislation. 
That link comes about through the licensed building practitioner regime. Through that regime there is a set of classes of licence and architects fall into one of those categories. During the select committee process we heard from numerous people for and against the retention of exclusive use of the name “architect”. As a member of the committee I hate to disagree with my colleague Peter Brown on this issue. I understand the position he has taken but I agree with the outcome of the select committee process. The committee agreed to deal with architects under the term “registered architect” and to free up the term “architect” for those people who have the necessary qualifications. I give the example of people who have a qualification such as Bachelor of Architecture. Such people should be able to use the term “architect”. They have the qualification and with a certain amount of experience they will fit into the licensed building practitioner format so there is a place for them in that structure. Obviously there is a means of discipline within that structure and there is also a means of identifying what level they are capable of. The registered architects will have been accepted into their own institution and will be recognised accordingly as licensed building practitioners. 
It is interesting to note that during the select committee inquiry into the bill the New Zealand Institute of Architects came before us and claimed to have a certain number of members. After the select committee produced its report there was a mad flurry of activity behind the scenes and all the MPs on the committee were lobbied. I was one who was lobbied to try to have me change my view on it. I had a visit from Chen Palmer and Partners along with— 
Jill Pettis 
: How much did it cost you—$3000? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Well it did not cost me anything. That firm was representing the Architects Education and Registration Board and the New Zealand Institute of Architects. It was during that discussion that the New Zealand Institute of Architects claimed that its membership was 2000 which did not tally with the numbers that had been given to us during its presentation to the select committee. During the select committee process it had said the membership was 1000. When questioned why there was a difference in the figures the institute agreed that its membership was 1000 but said there were another 1000 trying to join. I have to question why that other 1000 were being included in its membership. When I questioned members of the institute further as why those people were not being welcomed into their club—I have to use the term “club” because that is the way it seemed to us during the select committee process; it had become a closed shop or club type of arrangement—I learnt that some of those people either elected to remain outside of it or were being kept outside of it because they had disagreements with the institute. It was during that process that I realised we had it right in splitting away the registered architects and having a separate category of architects. 
I was very disappointed in the claim made by the institute that it had received dozens and dozens of letters from overseas expressing grave concern about the proposed changes. When I asked for copies of those letters I received some. I point out that the meeting with the people from Chen Palmer and Partners took place on 19 May 2004. The date on the first letter from Paris is 19 May 2004. If we take the time difference into account that was the day after our meeting. The next letter is dated 22 May 2004 and was from a New Zealand architect. Then there was another one from Scotland dated 20 May 2004—the letters are starting to be dated several days after the meeting—and it just goes on. Those letters are all dated after our meeting. I wondered whether the institute had actually received any of those letters beforehand—perhaps those dates were incorrectly put on them! But I was very disappointed in that process because the institute’s representatives were making claims about the institute’s membership that were not quite correct and then they made claims about letters they had received from overseas. 
I have to question their ability to manage their institute because we were disturbed by the fact that they were very blasé during the select committee process but when things looked bad for them they brought in the big guns. It must have cost an awful lot of money to have Chen Palmer and Partners lobby for them. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes it’s $3000 an hour. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: How much an hour? Good heavens! For the institute’s representatives suddenly to take a heavy-handed approach like that after the select committee had gone through its process shows I suspect that they were smarting. The institute’s membership must be very angry with the representatives who did the presentation. They were very blasé and were not very forthcoming with the information they should have been presenting. 
Personally I am of the view that there should be two classes with the criterion for registered architects being that they meet the qualifications of the Registered Architects Board and there being another level for architects on their own. Those people will have qualifications like a Bachelor of Architecture and they should be allowed to use that qualification because they have earned it. They should not be excluded. They have the ability and the qualification to produce quality designs and buildings. Of course under the Building Act and the whole process of licensed building practitioners they fall into one of the categories. Depending on their level of competence and qualification they should be able to fit in accordingly. 
The one other point I would like to raise on this part of this bill is the link between the Building Act and the Architects Bill and the regulatory means for disciplinary action. It needs to go both ways. If registered architects fail in terms of the Building Act then that information is passed back to the architects’ board for disciplinary action. Ordinary architects who are not registered are disciplined under the Building Act—they are kept in line there. 
With that point I conclude that I strongly believe that the select committee had it right. A very good examination was made by the select committee and I congratulate Dianne Yates on the work she did on it. I am disappointed that the Government because it has been heavily lobbied is changing the bill with a Supplementary Order Paper that will come up later.