Tisch Lindsay: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19922] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to look at Part 2 in conjunction with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 354 and the changes I propose to that Supplementary Order Paper that would I believe clarify the position. I want to go back to the point I made during the second reading debate on the question of what an architect is. The word “architect” is not defined in the bill at all. As the bill does not define the term “architect” the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper has provided a definition for the purposes of the Registered Architects Bill. I made the point—and I reiterate it—that the Supplementary Order Paper states that an architect is: “a person who designs buildings prepares plans and specifications for buildings or supervises the construction of buildings …”. But let us look at the Building Act. This is a comparison of two pieces of legislation that go hand in hand. It does not talk about architects at all but it does talk about plans and specifications. It states: “ ‘Plans and specifications’ means the drawings specifications and other documents”—and that is an important phrase—“according to which a building is proposed to be constructed altered demolished or removed ”. So here we have a difference between the two pieces of legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am referring to clause 7 and to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 354. The point I was making before the tea break was that we have different types of architects. All the so-called architects be they software architects landscape architects financial architects or conservation architects will in the course of their work prepare plans. That is the nature of the work they do. So what does the Government mean in its Supplementary Order Paper therefore when it states “designs buildings prepares plans and specifications for buildings or supervises the construction of buildings”? This is the issue I have with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. Is it going to be illegal for software architects to use the title “architect” when they prepare software and concept plans for a building? The Minister might like to take a call on this. Will it be illegal for landscape architects to use the title “architect” if they prepare planting plans for building projects? Will it be illegal for financial architects to use the title “architect” if they prepare financial plans for a property developer’s building portfolio? Will it be illegal for conservation architects to use the title “architect” if they prepare a written conservation plan identification of the architectural or cultural significance of a heritage building? 
It would be ridiculous to fine these people $10000 which is provided for in the bill because these people are preparing plans that are associated with buildings. It is illogical to limit the use of the generic word “architect” beyond the definition required for the purposes of the bill and thus the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper needs to clarify the phrase “prepare plans”. 
I referred before the dinner break to what is in the Building Act because that talks about definitions for plans and specifications. I want to see a clear distinction so that there is no doubt whatsoever about the difference between preparing and drawing plans. My Supplementary Order Paper which has been tabled states: “No person who designs buildings draws plans and prepares specifications”—that is the word change—“for buildings …” and it continues. 
Let us be very clear about that. The clause would read: “No person who designs buildings draws plans and prepares specifications for buildings or supervises construction of buildings may use the title ‘architect’ unless they are registered.” That in my view tidies it up. 
The second point I want to bring to the Committee’s attention is the use of the abbreviation “BArch”. If someone has a Bachelor of Architecture clause 7(2) states that “a person may use the title ‘registered architect’ or ‘architect’ (or words initials or abbreviations of those titles) in accordance with the rules in representing qualifications or titles awarded by overseas agencies.” 
It is the phrase “awarded by overseas agencies” that I have difficulty with. Does it really matter where the qualification comes from? I would have thought that New Zealand qualifications were held in the highest esteem. Certainly when members of the Institute of Architects appeared before the select committee they made that claim and I am not doubting their sincerity at all. One must be aware that 40 percent of all architectural graduates do not become architects. They do not become registered. But they have a qualification. It is just the same as someone not practising law who might be able to call himself or herself “such and such LLB”. 
Someone could well be an accountant and could call himself or herself a chartered accountant even though that person might not be practising at the time. I am entitled to call myself a valuer because I have valuation qualifications but I am not a registered valuer because I do not have a practising certificate and that is the difference. Clause 7(2) states: “Despite subsection (1) a person may use that title (or words initials or abbreviations of that title) in accordance with the rules in representing qualifications or titles awarded by overseas agencies.” 
What I want to see here in my submission and the Minister might take a call on this is the omission of the words “awarded by overseas agencies”. It is very clear then. People who have qualifications are able to use those qualifications because they have earned them they have a degree or qualification that they can put beside their name. It does not purport that they will be a registered architect. But just as with any other profession those people would be able to use their qualification. I do not believe that people who have an overseas qualification will be deemed to be any greater and have any greater experience or expertise and offer to New Zealand consumers the protection that this bill is aiming to give. 
I do not think also as I read this part that even if people were to come to New Zealand they could come here and not be registered but still use the expression “BArch” because it has been awarded by an overseas agency. I think that is wrong. So my Supplementary Order Paper states quite clearly that people who have a qualification are able to use that term even though they may not be registered. 
These are the points that National wants to bring to the Committee’s attention. I invite the Minister to take a call specifically on the points I have mentioned. I think they are very clear. I do not think they are contentious in any way. They clarify the position. What they do in my view is bring some clarity to the whole debate because the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper is ambiguous.