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:19925] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 It was good that the Minister took the call to try to explain why he is opposed to Lindsay Tisch’s amendments. I propose to support them for reasons that do not arise out of anything doctrinaire—it does not seem to me that this bill should involve political alignment—but simply because the words do not tell me what they intend. When the bill refers to “overseas agencies” in clause 7(2) it states that despite the prohibition on using “architect” or “registered architect” in relation to building when one is not a member of the institute one can use that title or words initials or abbreviations of one of those titles “in accordance with the rules” and it does not tell me here what “the rules” are but perhaps I have missed it somewhere. But it is worse that it says “awarded by overseas agencies.” Now what on earth is an overseas agency? Is this a mail-order university? What is an overseas agency for the purposes of this bill? It may be that there is a really straightforward answer and that it appears here somewhere. But it seems to me that this could be like Bernie Ogilvy’s university—his doctorate; the sort of thing one goes and spends 5 months at and as long as one receives the label “architect” one can walk around the purported protection. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: No. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Minister is saying “No.” I hope he can explain exactly how. Because I have been as quickly as I could through this bill and I cannot see why the term “overseas agencies” does not refer to anyone setting up as the conferrer of useful titles. My amendments suggest that instead this clause should refer to “New Zealand university”. I say that because the term “university” in New Zealand is protected—as long as one is not a wananga it is fiercely protected—and in fact the Government has made it plain that it will not be lightly allowing institutions to use that description. So if we wanted to repair this defective provision with the very short notice that we have a reference to “university” would mean that at least we were referring to BArch or the qualifications that have some content. 
But I look at clause 7(2) as the most “own goal” loophole that can be imagined. It says we have the strict rule that New Zealanders with a New Zealand Batchelor of Architecture cannot use their qualification if they are involved in anything connected with building but someone who gets one from an overseas institution—and it may be a New Zealander who simply sends for it by mail order—can walk right around the rule. Surely the Government cannot mean that. 
If that is not what it means then the Minister had better read into the record of this Parliament—into  
Hansard 
—exactly what it does mean because the courts will be very puzzled. The courts will be struggling to find just what Parliament was meaning by something as vague as a “title … (or words initials or abbreviations of those titles) … awarded by overseas agencies.” I take it that the Minister is being briefed on this. I hope he can explain it. 
I now want to go back and speak in support of Mr Tisch’s first amendment. Because it seems very clear indeed that the word “plan” without referring to drawing plans can refer to just about any scheme that involves a building. The Minister may not be from a culture that is familiar with the way business is done but the first thing to do when building a building is to go to the bank with a business plan. I am sure the Minister is not intending to catch the person who prepares business plans—[ 
Interruption 
] It may be as he says that this is pedantic but without the extra clarification that Mr Tisch adds by talking about drawing a plan I think the court will not have enough to be able to say: “No drawing a plan doesn’t refer to all those other kinds of plans.” So I think Mr Tisch’s amendment is a very sound one. 
But if Mr Tisch’s qualification is wrong we would really like to know the reasons. The Minister scoffed at the notion of say a landscape plan because he said that did not involve a building. That may be the case except that we now have a Building Act that expressly extends the meaning of “building” a long way past what the Minister talked about as being a structure with a roof. I think I recall from the debate only a few days ago that “building” now includes dams. No one has ever called “dams” a building before. But I think that for the purposes of the restrictions in the Building Act it now includes dams—holes in the ground with no roof. 
So I suggest he could give a more substantive answer than simply mocking the Tisch amendment and the efforts of the Green Party and United Future Party to do their best in this Committee stage on what should be a non-contentious bill to improve its wording to avoid ambiguity and to do what this Parliament is here to do during a Committee stage of a bill which is not to set people on a course that inevitably involves enriching lawyers at some stage in the future. 
The Tisch amendments are minor and as I see them quite uncontroversial. They are an attempt to improve the language. They do not try to change the policy. They do make it clear that what we are talking about is what most people would think of as builders’ or architects’ plans instead of all the other kinds of plans that there can be and the other kinds of specifications for that matter. I think the only reason the Minister can genuinely offer for opposing that amendment instead of welcoming it and endorsing it is simple arrogance of office—the pride that says “We can’t learn anything until we’ve been humiliated the way we have been on the Building Act.” 
I am surprised that this Minister who does not have the natural arrogance of the Minister in charge of the Building Act Mr Carter does not simply say “We will look to it.” Why not reorder the business give the Parliament a couple of hours look at those words and recognise that. If it is really too excruciating to have a National Party amendment approved by United Future the Greens and the rest of the Parliament then put in a Government amendment to do it. Handwrite it. We will not care. ACT will vote for it as long as it improves the legislation. That would be satisfying. It would be satisfying for this Parliament if we improved it. But to simply stand there and scoff at a clarification without saying why it would do harm is not a responsible position for a Minister to take. 
I ask that the new clause 7(1A) the Government has put in in reversal of the considered work of the select committee be modified as proposed by Lindsay Tisch from National because the Parliament ought to have more care when promoting legislation that it will not be simply a picnic for lawyers at some time in the future. 
In terms of “overseas agency” the least embarrassing course would be to take Mr Tisch’s proposal and simply drop those words. It is embarrassingly vague. “Overseas agency” sounds like al-Qaeda’s public relations firm. An “overseas agency” could be anything. It is an undefined term and we could remove it. I think “overseas agency” could be left but the Minister would be far better to replace that term with a reference to New Zealand universities so that we know that what is intended is “BArch” or whatever the term is that the university confers to show that someone has spent the time and qualified in architecture in New Zealand. That of course would mean that 40 percent of New Zealanders who choose not to become registered architects within the institute would not then be tempted to find their convenient “overseas agency” through which to exercise their loophole powers or to find a way through a loophole. 
Mr Tisch also mentioned that there were requirements in other law for people to state their qualifications—for example in prospectuses. Prospectuses quite often set out plans or diagrams. A prospectus for a unit trust to fund a shopping centre will have a plan and it will be in connection with the building. The prospectus requirement under the securities regulations is that one must put one’s qualification. As subclause (2) stands any foreign designer could put his or her architecture qualification but it would appear that a New Zealand qualified architect could not irrespective of whether he or she is a member. It just seems that the Minister is being offered a way out and is not taking it.