http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0405/S00144.htm
Deeply concerned about content of Architects Bill
Friday, 14 May 2004, 9:08 am
Press Release: Word of Mouth Media
Media Release – May 13, 2004
Landscape architects deeply concerned about content of Architects Bill
New Zealand’s landscape architects today slated a proposed law
change which they say will damage their profession and the industry.
Under the Architects Bill, anyone will be able to describe
themselves as an architect - a title which has long been protected by
law. Like landscape architects, architects have a professional body, an
Institute, which sets standards for qualifications and competency.
The standards provide consumer protection. With the law change,
consumer protection is undermined. This seems to be entirely contrary to
government policy.
But while "architect" would be open to all, the planned legislation
would limit use of the term "registered architect". This is not adequate
for the consumer.
New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects president Di Lucas
condemned the bill which will replace the Architects Act of 1963.
``We are supporting the NZ Institute of Architects in seeking to
reverse this proposal and change it back to what was in the Architects
Bill as introduced to the House last year,’’ Ms Lucas said.
``There are potential negative implications for landscape
architects if the protection is dropped. I understand the government
tried to do this with dentists and their lobbying got it reversed.’’
The bill before Parliament threatens to damage the level demanded
of all qualified architects and will result in a blurring of
understanding between architects and non-architects.
Ms Lucas said people like draughtsmen could call themselves an
"architect" and this could confuse the public as to whom they should
deal with. Instead of helping the public, the change will undermine the
regulation of the profession.
The Dental Council went through a similar frustrating debacle which
threatened any technician potentially calling themselves a dentist.
``The dentists have what appears a better solution in the Health
Practitioners Act that covers nurses, dentists, etc. In the HPA, a
dentist is a person who is registered. A nurse is a person who is
registered. Thus there is precedent for this title protection.’’
Ms Lucas has written to Commerce Minister Margaret Wilson and
appealed to her to have the bill reworded. She told Ms Wilson she was
``appalled at the select committee recommendations, which appear to
undermine the standards established in the industry’’.
Ends