Smith Murray: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Murray: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19928] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I think there is common ground among all parties including the Government on this measure and that is that the intention is that the proposed wording “prepares plans and specifications for buildings” in new subclause (1A) of clause 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 354 is confined to architectural plans and specifications. It is not intended to have a broader definition that goes beyond that. That is the intention of the Government the Minister and the Opposition parties and certainly it is my intention. The argument is simply whether the wording that is there achieves that end or needs some modification such as that proposed by the National Party in Lindsay Tisch’s amendment which would change “prepares plans and specifications” to “draws plans and prepares specifications”. 
Firstly I express my appreciation to the Minister for making his officials available to talk with me at length during the tea hour to discuss that. I know that it is not a matter of the Minister taking an arrogant line and being a stick in the mud; he is taking advice from his officials and his officials are the ones who really need to be convinced about this but I was not able to do that during the tea hour. 
However I should clarify for the sake of the debate that “building” has a far broader definition than simply walls and a roof. Section 7 of the Building Act states that it also includes mechanical electrical or other systems a fence a vehicle or motor vehicle a mast pole or a telecommunication aerial a cable car and any two or more buildings that on completion are intended to be managed as one building. That is the extent of the definition. The definition is far broader in terms of the Building Act. 
Notwithstanding that we are talking about construction and we are looking at the issue in that context. That is probably the critical thing; we are looking at the question of preparing plans and specifications in the context of new clause 7(1A) which states: “No person who designs buildings prepares plans and specifications for buildings or supervises the construction of building may use the term title ‘architect’ … ”. That in itself firstly confines us in terms of what we are talking about to architectural-type work; to work that is commonly understood to be architectural work and not work that is outside that—and I think landscape architecture is one example of that that has been mentioned. 
Also the term “prepares plans and specifications for buildings” would be read by any court as a whole. The three words “plans and specifications” are read together and they are defined again in the Building Act as meaning “the drawings specifications and other documents according to which a building is proposed to be constructed altered demolished or removed:”. To some extent to try to take “prepares plans” out of that context and to say that it could be read outside the context of both this subclause and the definition of “plans and specifications” in the Building Act is not realistic in terms of the way that the court will approach it. 
The question is really whether National’s amendment will actually improve the situation. One of the things I note is that by separating out the words “plans and specifications” so that they no longer operate as a unit and making the phrase “draws plans and prepares specifications” we may be creating more problems than we are resolving. That will make “plans” a separate unit distinct from specifications because the amendment states “draws plans” then “prepares specifications” as opposed to “prepares plans and specifications”. That may in fact create more problems. There is also the issue as to what the phrases “prepares plans” and “draws plans” actually mean. For example could one say that a landscape architect actually draws a plan? One might argue that he or she does indeed draw a plan—and prepares a plan as well. So does the word “draws” actually solve the problem for us? 
I am not too sure that this amendment would actually correct the perceived problem. Therefore I am a little ambivalent in my own mind as to whether the amendment ought to be supported. I do have a concern that “prepares plans” could be construed particularly by the Registered Architects’ Board as allowing a very broad-brush approach to be taken and that it could abuse it for its own ends in terms of protecting the industry. At the end of the day that can be challenged in the court and it would take only one court ruling to do that. So although I have some sympathy for the change and had in fact intended to support it I am not sure firstly that it does solve the problem and secondly I am concerned that it may actually make the situation worse by dividing up the phrase “plans and specifications” and separating the words out as not actually flowing together. On balance I will not support the amendment despite having the freedom to do that. 
In terms of the second amendment—and I have heard what Mr Franks has said—I think the difficulty Mr Franks has is that he is overlooking the fact that new clause 7(2) on Supplementary Order Paper 354 states “in accordance with the rules” and he has admitted that he is not quite sure what “in accordance with the rules” means. But “in accordance with the rules” is an obvious reference to clause 67(2) of the bill which provides for the board to make “rules that govern all of the following matters:” and paragraph (b) of which states: “the form of words initials and abbreviations that must be used if the title ‘registered architect’ (or words initials or abbreviations of that title to which section 7(1)(b) applies) is used in representing qualifications or titles awarded by overseas agencies”. It seems to me that what is happening here is that there is already provision for the use of the terms as far as New Zealand qualifications are concerned. That is clearly covered in the bill in clause 7(1) as it stands and new subclause (2) is to cover the situation of qualifications outside New Zealand. Paragraph (a) of clause 67(2) governs the ability to set up rules to say how the abbreviations can be used in the New Zealand context and paragraph (b) states that the board can set up rules in terms of how the words initials and abbreviations can be used in regard to overseas qualifications. 
So it does seem to me that including the words “in accordance with the rules” gives quite a lot of scope for the board actually to determine what is acceptable when it is looking at overseas qualifications and the limits to which that can be used. That no doubt would include looking at the overseas agency concerned and how that should be able to be expressed. So there is some sense in new subclause (2) of clause 7; it does not need the amendments that National and ACT are proposing because of the context of clause 67(2).