Registered Architects Bill

, on behalf of the Minister for Building Issues: I move, That the Registered Architects Bill be now read a third time. I am pleased to begin the bill’s final passage through the House, as this bill represents the balanced path for the regulation of architects that both industry and consumers have been seeking.

The debate in the Committee stage was very interesting, and I want to applaud Murray Smith for his clear exposition of why clause 7(1A) of Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the Minister’s name should stand. He hit the nail exactly on the head when he put together the “prepares plans and specifications” provision in respect of buildings. The three things should be read together. We had some debate in the House that people who were architects of a financial plan were somehow going to be covered by this bill. This bill is about buildings, so Mike Ward was exactly on the money, as well.

💬 Dail Jones: No, this bill is about architects.

Architects—yes, that is right. The second thing I want to do is to reassure members of the ACT party who were concerned about the title “overseas agencies”. The whole purpose of the part was to be able to make a distinction between qualifications people have as academic qualifications, and qualifications they have as professional qualifications. People will be able to use their titles in relation to architecture if they have qualifications from an overseas university. They will be able to write about them and say they have them, but they will not be able to put those forward as if they were professional qualifications unless they are consistent with the rules provided under this legislation, and therefore registered. So the bill is making a very clear distinction. I want to reassure the ACT party that people will be able to write about and have their qualifications relating to architecture on letterheads and otherwise, providing they are not putting those forward as if they were professional qualifications—unless they are registered and compliant with the legislation. The bill is making a clear distinction, which I think the member Stephen Franks has missed.

This is a very good bill, which has been around for a long time. I thank Stephen Franks for his comments on the symmetry of the bill. I am sure its writer, Margaret Wilson, would be very pleased to hear his comments of admiration.

During the Committee stage I listened to Rick Barker’s explanation of the definition “architect”. Although it was imaginative, I find myself in agreement with the Tisch amendments and with the comments and contribution made by Stephen Franks, in particular. It is easy in this environment to be certain about what the term means. It is easy to dismiss the concerns of Mr Franks and Mr Tisch with a wave of the hand and a “Don’t be silly; that will never happen.” attitude. Well, I recall similar assurances being made about the foreshore and seabed legislation. We heard: “Don’t worry, that will never happen.” We were told that the issue would never be back in the courts. We were told that the Māori Land Court would never make a determination that would make life difficult for members of Parliament—because the bill passed with such complete certainty! There was no equivocation or ambiguity. [Interruption] New Zealand First! That is right, the legal mind of Dail Jones has already been questioned by Judge Williams.

I find myself wanting to conclude National’s remarks in the third reading debate on the Registered Architects Bill by saying that, yes, we support this bill, but not without reservations, in particular those contained in the Tisch amendments. We are concerned about the fact that this Government’s view of how others will interpret legislation does not affect the way the courts may, do, or will interpret legislation, and it is the height of arrogance to assume that the legislation is so unambiguous, so certain, and so clear that it will not be questioned. So although Rick Barker stands and makes dismissive gestures about examples of the word “architect” being used to describe those in other professions or trades who may have incorporated that word into their titles, the proof will be in the pudding. Mr Tisch made a contribution to try to clarify some of those issues. That contribution was dismissed outright by this Government, and time will tell whether the Tisch amendments were right or wrong.

New Zealand First supports this legislation and the Supplementary Order Paper that has come through. If the Tisch amendments had been passed, I believe they would create a great deal of ambiguity and confusion in the courts, which is the reason why New Zealand First would not support them. Of course, any matter that comes before this House and provides for, say, an appeal to the District Court, as this bill does, may end up in the District Court. I say to all those people who wish to go and see lawyers, whether they are the 17 people from Ōpōtiki who cannot understand an Act that states that the Crown owns the foreshore and seabed as its absolute property—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: That’s one group that can’t understand it.

And there is only one other group that cannot understand it—Dr Brash’s group. The Crown owns the foreshore and seabed as its absolute property. That is clear to everyone in New Zealand, other than to 17 people in Ōpōtiki. Well, I say to people who want to go to court, only one word—“breed”.

💬 Darren Hughes: “Breed” or “breathe”?

Breed—because lawyers love people who want to fight cases that they will lose. It is a lawyer’s dream. So I tell those people to breed, and I say to Dr Brash “Breed.”, if that is what he believes about the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

However, I come back to this bill. Of course people can go to court. That is the right New Zealanders have. It is their right under the Magna Carta to go to court. It is their right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and under all the various legislation that goes back to before there were Māori in New Zealand. It is people’s right to go to court and be judged by their peers. Nothing in this bill stops that from happening. Nothing in any legislation ever stops that from happening. Whether they win, of course, is another matter, and, as a lawyer, I say to them: “Just breed.”

The ACT party has voted for the Registered Architects Bill for the reason that, on balance, it probably does more desirable things than undesirable things. But it is such a shame to have to support something reluctantly, because, with a little bit of approval and a bit of commitment to quality in legislation, we could have had something that was far more satisfying. In this case, “satisfying” would simply have meant law about which the Minister could answer simple questions without confusing us more than we already were.

The Minister tried to answer a question when he began the third reading debate. He said that, yes, of course people will be able to use their professional qualification on their letterhead, as long as, in relation to building—and I think I am paraphrasing him correctly—it does not purport to be their qualification for building. The words were something to that effect. It was quite a long sentence that essentially said: “Yes, you can use your degree; yes, you can put your degree on the letterhead, as long as it is not in connection with a building and implying expertise in building.” Well, what else is a degree in architecture? So does that mean that they can or they cannot put their degree on the letterhead? We do not know, and the reason we do not know is that the Minister would have had all those whisperings in his ear from the officials behind him, busy telling him “Yes” on the one hand and “No” on the other hand, and he ended up as confused as we predict the court will be when it tries to make head or tail of what New Zealand First, the Greens, and United Future have now colluded with Labour to pass.

The other opportunity I should take at this stage is to explain why we are voting for this bill, despite having voted against the first schedule. We voted against the first schedule simply to record, for the sake of consistency, that we believe in one law for all. We do not, unlike the other parties in the House, justify race discrimination on the grounds that it might be well intentioned. ACT is against race discrimination. ACT is against “the soft bigotry of low expectations”—I think that is the phrase. We can see in the first schedule to this legislation that the New Zealand Registered Architects’ Board, of all bodies, is directed, as a specific requirement as a good employer, to recognise the aims and aspirations of Māori, the employment requirements of Māori, and the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the board. So what is that, a quota? Does that mean that the Registered Architects’ Board now has to go out and find some token Māori because this Parliament is telling it that it must recognise the need for the involvement of Māori as employees of the board? What a patronising piece of law. What a piece of bigotry. It is bigotry because it has such low expectations that Māori need Parliament to instruct the Registered Architects’ Board that they must be employed. What a pathetic piece to be sticking into law in this country in 2005.

The rest of this Parliament, as it does, solemnly voted in favour of those provisions. ACT is proud that we do not vote for this stuff. We actually read the law. We think that quality matters and that principles are only principles if one sticks to them consistently. Just because there is an architects body out there and it is election time, and greasing around and throwing baubles at tiny segments of the electorate is the fashion, it does not mean we should be voting for provisions as patronising as these. The need for the board to be a good employer—

💬 Steve Chadwick: It’s what they wanted.

I will tell the member why they wanted it—presumably “they” being the representatives of the architects. They probably told the Government that they would go along with these nonsense words because they knew this Government to be full of people who would not advance the legislation unless they did. They probably feared, knowing what this Government is like, that unless they came up with this kind of twaddle and stuck in this stuff that compels the board to employ Māori, that the cabal—how did John Tamihere describe them—of lesbians, and the rest of it, would not let them get their legislation through. Is that what the member for Rotorua is really saying when she tells us that the architects wanted to be told that they must employ Māori? They would employ Māori because Māori were competent. They would employ Māori because they presented as the best person for the job. That is what any employer would do. Employers do not come along and say to Parliament: “Please order me to employ Māori.” If the member would care to look at clause 38—

💬 Steve Chadwick: I was on the committee.

The member is telling us that she was on the committee. Did they actually come before the committee and say: “Please instruct us to employ Māori?”. How did they word it? What did they say? They are not my words. The member was shrieking at me: “That’s what they wanted! That’s what they asked for!” Who were they, and what did they ask for? Did they ask for clause 38(2)(d) in schedule 1, which tells them that they must recognise the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the board? Clause 38(2) in schedule 1 requires that the board must recognise the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the board, and the aims and aspirations and cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups. What is this? Does the Registered Architects’ Board have to employ someone who understands tepee building, gers, or Mongolian yurts? What are these Māori reference words doing in legislation to set up the board to register architects? How do they recognise the cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups on the Registered Architects’ Board?

💬 Judith Collins: Ask Mr Choudhary. He will know.

Mrs Collins says that Mr Choudhary will know. There may be someone else in the Chamber who was on the select committee, because we are now being told that that is what the architects asked for. I really would like to know how they—

💬 Steve Chadwick: That’s not what I said. I said they are very happy with it.

Oh, now they did not ask for it. Now I understand that they are very happy with it. Of course they would be happy if they had a couple of spiky-haired people with big dangly earrings telling them: “You be happy with this or we won’t advance your bill. You just show joy or it won’t go through.” I think that is the sort of thing we are hearing. We are hearing that there was a bit of a stand-over of the architects board. They were told: “You be very, very happy. Dance, or we will not put your bill through.” It is interesting, is it not. It is really very, very strange.

There is a bit more here too that I had not noticed. The board has to recognise “the employment requirements of persons with disabilities.” The regulations already require ramps and toilets for disabled people. What more can the architects registration board do to recognise the employment requirements of persons with disabilities? This is PC nonsense.

💬 Judith Collins: It’s the sort of thing John Tamihere railed against.

It does sound like the sort of thing John Tamihere has been railing about. I can understand how sickening it must have been sitting in Cabinet when he was required to sign up to this sort of thing. What it does not explain to me—sure, John Tamihere has blown the whistle on the Labour Cabinet—is why the rest of Parliament voted for this. Why, on schedule 1, was the 113 to7? I think that it should not have been just ACT saying that this kind of nonsense does not need to be put in the law. I would expect National to vote against this schedule. I would expect New Zealand First to vote against it. New Zealand First has very recently discovered that it has votes in relation to principles of the treaty. It now manages to vote against bills that refer to those principles. What about voting against bills that tell the Registered Architects’ Board that it has to involve Māori as employees of the board, because that is patronising pap?

I begin by congratulating the New Zealand Registered Architects’ Board and the profession of architects on achieving their new bill after 40 years, replacing their 1963 Act and bringing them into a form of governance that is of a more contemporary nature. I know they have waited a long time for it, and I guess that once they saw the bill come out of the select committee they thought they were getting close, only to have to sit on their hands for a number of months before it finally came to the House. But the bill is here tonight and it will be passed tonight, and no doubt they will have a cocktail party of their own to celebrate.

I must agree with Stephen Franks’ comparison of this bill with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill and agree that this bill is succinct at 87 clauses. It is something more of the sort of ilk we would expect in terms of a Government bill regulating a profession. Certainly, it makes the 380 clauses in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill look ponderous, complex, and way over the top, as I have said previously. I guess the architects have to be congratulated on having a modest-sized bill come through the House. I would only like to see lawyers achieve the same result at the end of the day.

This bill is about setting standards in terms of architecture, but it is important, in relation to the new provision for standards, educational qualifications, and things this bill now implements, that the Registered Architects’ Board, as it now is, does not continue with the reputation it has for being a bit of an old boys’ club and for being restrictive. I know that there is some concern out there from some quarters that there is a degree of patch protection as far as architects are concerned.

I think it is important for the good of the profession as a whole, and for the whole building industry in fact, that architects have an inclusive organisation that tries to foster difference within its midst. It may well be that architects need to look at different standard qualifications in terms of architecture, to accommodate some of the people who have architectural degrees but who want to work more in a fringe area than in the main areas of high-rise buildings, commercial buildings, and buildings with other complicated designs. It is important, if the registered architects’ profession wants to maintain a broad membership, that it can accommodate the needs of its members, both at the highest levels and at lower levels. I would encourage it to do that. Certainly, at the Government Administration Committee we heard from architectural draftspeople and others who are working in areas on the fringes of strict architectural work, and we heard their concerns about where they fitted within the industry. I will commend to the Registered Architects’ Board that it tries to take an inclusive approach, but I recognise that it does have to set some minimum standards.

This legislation, as I said in my second reading speech, ties in very much with the Building Act, and with the licensed building practitioner regime. There will be a design group there, and the indications within this legislation in terms of its facilitation, which allows the Minister to delegate functions to it, are that the board will be looked to in order for it to play an important role in relation to design practitioners, under the licensed building practitioner regime, and in setting standards for that group—at least in a consultative way, if not also in a way that involves the assessment of practitioners in terms of the various categories of design. I think the board could make an important contribution in that area, but if it is to do that, it is important that it takes the inclusive approach I was referring to earlier.

I congratulate the board on achieving this milestone of a new Act, and wish the board well for its future as it implements the Act, sees it bedding down, and furthers the interests of its own profession.

Bill read a third time.