Registered Architects Bill

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.

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 $10,000, 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.

I will respond to the comments made by Lindsay Tisch, and accept his challenge. Mr Tisch predicates his amendment on a misconception of how the title “architect” can be used. He seems to think that the definition here is ambiguous in some way. I think it is absolutely plain. I have never seen it be more simple or more direct in my life. In new clause 7(1A) on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter, the term “architect” refers to a “… person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings,”. I will pick up The Concise Oxford Dictionary, which I happen to have with me, and look at the definition of the word “building”.

💬 Darren Hughes: Which page?

It is on page 172, for the member’s information. “Building” is defined as something built with a roof and walls. That is pretty straightforward. I thought all of us would understand what a building was—walls and a roof.

Mr Tisch thinks that if someone does any architecture in conjunction with software that happens to relate to a house, then the person who is designing the software architecture is somehow making a building. But I say to Mr Tisch that I have never seen a piece of software yet that had walls and a roof. Mr Tisch then goes on to say that if someone does some landscape architecture around a building, in conjunction with a building, then somehow that is a building—that that landscape has walls and a roof. I have not yet seen walls and a roof on a tree or a garden. I have seen them on a glasshouse, which I would say is a building, and I have seen a garden shed that has walls and a roof. But no one calls that a garden. It is the garden shed; it is a building.

Also, we have other sorts of architecture. I saw something very interesting in the Cook Islands loan scam, where tax evasion was the key. Someone described the architecture of the scam—how it was constructed. I would say that someone could front up and use the term “architect” in that context perfectly legally to describe himself or herself as a scam architect. I would say that no one would be able to sue such a person for calling himself or herself a scam architect. That is why Lindsay Tisch’s amendment is wrong—it is absolutely wrong. The amendment in new clause 7(1A) on Supplementary Order Paper 354 goes on to state “supervises the construction of buildings”. An architect is someone who supervises the construction of buildings—something with walls and a roof. So if a person is an architect and supervises software, then obviously it does not have walls and a roof.

The definition is absolutely accurate; there is no ambiguity at all. Reference to a naval architect, which Mr Tisch alluded to, is not confusing, either. If a person calls himself or herself a naval architect, that person is not using the word “architect”. Such a person is saying “naval architect”, because the person realises that he or she is working with a ship’s sides and keels and topsides, but that ships do not have what people would normally see as being walls and a roof. There is a roof on a ship, but people call it something else. I just want to make that clear.

💬 Simon Power: What is it called?

I just cannot remember at the moment.

💬 Dail Jones: That’s got the member!

It has me for the moment, but I will come back to it in a tick.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): A deck.

No, it is not a deck. But then the roof of the top of the ship is a poop deck. I am not sure, but I think there is another term for it—bulkhead, there is a range of other terms.

The point about this issue is that the definition is absolutely clear, and the Government is opposed to the amendment proposed by Lindsay Tisch, just as it is opposed to the second amendment to clause 7(2). What the amendment to that clause on Supplementary Order Paper 354 tries to do is to make sure that if someone has an overseas qualification and comes to New Zealand, then that person is entitled to use that qualification provided it is done within the context of the person being registered as an architect, and it is not being done in order to deceive. But if that person had the title, which may not have been registered, and if using it may, in fact, lead people to believe that he or she is qualified to do the job when he or she is not, then we are saying that is illegal—that we do not like that.

I want to assure Mr Tisch that if someone puts on his or her card that he or she is a landscape architect that person will not be sued, because it is quite clear that the person is a landscape architect, and that that has nothing to do with walls and a roof. If a person calls himself or herself a software architect that person will not be sued, because that person’s work has nothing to do with the walls and roof that make a building. We are perfectly happy with the definition as it stands. I think anybody who reads new clause 7(1A) about an architect being a “… person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises …” would say that that definition is absolutely clear.

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.

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 wānanga 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.

Do I think that there is likely to be any confusion over the term “architect”? No, I do not. If a software architect used the term he or she would put “software” in front of it. If a landscape architect used it, he or she would put “landscape” in front of it. If a software architect wants to design buildings, he or she cannot use the word “architect” on its own. “Architect” on its own has a well-understood meaning: it means somebody who builds buildings—someone who designs buildings and supervises their construction. It is very clear on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter that anyone who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings may use the title “architect”. Anyone who does those things is a registered architect, provided he or she has the qualifications and is registered. That is fairly clear.

We have been told that although the words “overseas agencies” are used, they do not preclude New Zealand architects from using their qualifications. It does not indicate, however, that because people have “BArch” after their name, they are necessarily the kinds of people who have the expertise to design a building that will keep out the weather and do all the things we would expect of it. It just means that they have the basic qualifications—that they have been to university for the required length of time and sat the examinations. That is the beginning. Normally, it takes a great deal more experience than that to design buildings, and that experience can be gained in an architect’s office.

The term “draws” is not free from ambiguities. We draw up plans for all sorts of things. So putting the term “draws” instead of “prepares” would not really clear up any ambiguities at all. There are ambiguities only if the term “prepares plans” is divorced from the rest of the description of “… prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings…”. People may use the title of “architect” provided they have the appropriate qualifications and provided they are registered.

It is important that people who want buildings to be designed for them go to the kind of people who have the appropriate qualifications. We are not talking just about buildings that keep out the weather; we are also talking about buildings that are safe. I think of the building that I spend a great deal of my life in these days.

💬 Stephen Franks: The bill doesn’t state that we have to use an architect.

One does not have to. But if a person has any sense at all, he or she will go to somebody who has the appropriate qualifications. I would suggest that anybody who simply relies on the terms “architect” or “registered architect” as the sole reason for going to somebody really needs to do a reality check. I would hope that someone would go and look at the work that the person had done before, check out his or her credentials in terms of experience, and go to somebody who had a track record that could be relied on. The terms “registered architect” and “architect” are a measure of protection, but, of course, a client would need to do more than to simply rely on that term.

I will not be supporting Lindsay Tisch’ amendments. I looked at them and checked out just what is in the bill. It is fairly clear that those amendments are not necessary.

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).

I am grateful to have been referred to clause 67 by Mr Smith, which does indeed provide the board with an instruction to make rules. I think he is correct that the reference to rules in clause 7 probably contemplates those rules—although I think it would have been better drafting practice if that had been defined either in clause 4 or in clause 7 itself. But I certainly do not think that clause 67 puts the board into a position whereby it can write rules that exclude overseas agencies without the possibility of a very good fight in court.

I am not trying to debate Part 3, but I am saying that in the context we have, clause 67 expressly preserves forms of words that are outside the forms that are approved by the rules to represent a person. It states: “(without limiting any others that may be used consistently with this Act)”. I have no doubt that because of the term “overseas agency”, someone will at least argue that his or her overseas qualification is one that he or she may use, because it is consistent with the intent of clause 7, which is not to prevent people from accurately describing their qualifications.

This is the problem that happens when the Government ignores the work of a select committee that has gone through and seen that the most rational framework would be one that accepts the same limitations that other professions have accepted, and decided that the word “registered” should go ahead. I do not think the Green argument that people who are software architects will put “software architect” or landscape architects will put “landscape architect”, helps very much because I am not confident that that does not still constitute a breach. The protection clause simply states that it is “words, initials, or abbreviations … that are intended to cause, or that may reasonably cause, any person to believe that the person using those words, initials, or abbreviations is a registered architect.” If one calls oneself a landscape architect, one is still claiming to be an architect, and of course it will be in connection with buildings. Just about any big project now has a landscape component.

I am looking at this as I suspect lay people will look at it, because ACT members were not represented on the committee and we did not go through the reasoning that the committee members reached. They came out saying that they were comfortable, for example, that the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement would work, because a registered architect in New Zealand would equate to similar requirements of the equivalent profession in Australia. Now, of course they will not. By succumbing to Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s eloquent lobbying, the Government, United Future, and the Greens are now saying that it will not be equivalent to the requirements in Australia. So there is nothing to tell us that the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement will still be as neat a fit.

It may be that the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, can rebut that. There may be facts that are not obvious, but the problem is that the Supplementary Order Paper does not have the same kind of explanation that the select committee made to explain what it was doing. At the very least, it would help the courts in future if the Minister would make a statement to rebut any inference that the rules in clause 67(2) will not be comprehensive. If they are comprehensive, then that may assist the court. The statement should also explain exactly what it is the Minister thinks an architecture graduate from a New Zealand university can do about his or her qualification, when he or she is engaged in something connected with building. Does the Minister think graduates can use the term “BArch”? Does the Minister think their letterhead can state “Graduate Architect”, or words to that effect? That is what the bill does not tell us.

After all this time, I think the public, architects, and the customers of architects are entitled to expect that they could look at the bill and know the answers to those questions. I do not know those answers.

If landscape architects or software architects want to set themselves up to design buildings, prepare plans and specifications for buildings, or supervise the construction of buildings, then they may not use the title “architect”, because it is quite clear that the proposed amendment to clause 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 354 reserves that title for people who are registered as architects and who have the appropriate qualifications as architects. No one else can use that title. If people go along to a landscape architect or a software architect to get their house designed, then they probably deserve what they get. It is very clear in this bill that that term is reserved. The provision is phrased: “(1A) No person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings may use the title “architect” unless he or she is a registered architect.” That is very, very clear to me.

💬 Stephen Franks: So what do they do with their qualification? What do they do with their degree?

Their qualifications are guaranteed by the fact that they are registered. Clearly, a person will not get registered if he or she is a landscape architect or software architect.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to the amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter be agreed to:

to omit from proposed new subclause (1A) the word “prepares”, and substitute the words “draws plans and prepares specifications”.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. When the Clerk calls: “Any other votes?”, is that the time that a member who wants to have a vote recorded personally and separately from the party vote would speak up?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Was it within the member’s ACT vote?

No, it is just that Mrs Pettis made a speech against this Supplementary Order Paper before the meal break, and I thought that with 51 votes cast, hers might have been the missing Labour vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, that is not a point of order. The parties call it.

Amendments agreed to, and Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 New Zealand Registered Architects' Board