Architects Board must prioritise safe buildings over mandated ideologies Architects’ registrations and livelihoods should not be on the line over differing worldviews. The Free Speech Union recommends that the New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB) focus on competence and physical safety, not subjective ideologies, as part of the organisation’s consultation on possible registration requirements, says Stephanie Martin, spokesperson for the Free Speech Union. “The NZRAB is proposing to assess architects on whether their work reflects a particular ideological viewpoint rather than simply whether they are professionally competent. The NZRAB invited us to be a key stakeholder in their consultation process on proposed expansions to the performance criteria required for architects’ professional registration. “We’ve urged NZRAB to consider matters that affect the safety of buildings and the public, leaving architects free to hold their own opinions regarding subjective topics such as the degree of integration of indigenous knowledge or Māori worldviews into the design process. “Architects should absolutely have the right to incorporate te ao Māori, and to upskill in this area if they have a particular interest or a related project. Likewise, if they have a project that relates to a different culture, religion, or tradition, it would be best practice to understand more about the context in which they’re working. But mandated opinions on such topics? That would be a dangerous overreach. “When registration hinges not on technical skills but on social, cultural or ideological attitudes, compulsory regulation becomes a tool for policing speech, mandating approaches, and limiting discussion, whether intentionally or not. That is inappropriate in a liberal democracy and inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Regulatory bodies have a responsibility to protect the public. This does not include ‘protection’ from ideas they might disagree with. “Ideological requirements should not determine whether an individual can become an architect, nor should current architects be limited in the cultural opinions or approaches they are allowed to hold or express. NZRAB should focus on physical safety and allow architects to explore and express different worldviews freely.”

Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Grant Roberston, and Ayesha Verrall have all colluded and decided to decline to give evidence at the COVID-19 Royal Commission public hearings. The ‘Podium of Truth’ has become the ‘Podium of Evasion’. These former ministers do not want to sit in a public hearing and answer the hard questions that every New Zealander deserves to know. If ever there was a definition for “a different kind of ‘abuse of’ power” this is it. New Zealand First demanded a second inquiry to ensure there was public accountability for the decisions made during the pandemic. These former Labour ministers are undermining the entire action and purpose of the inquiry to avoid public scrutiny. The Royal Commission has stated today that “the COVID-19 pandemic was a significant event that affected every New Zealander…we remain of the view that the public being able to see former ministers questioned about those decisions at a public hearing of a Royal Commission of Inquiry would significantly enhance public confidence in our process.” Those former Labour Ministers have shown they care nothing about public confidence, and worse, are treating the entire public with distain and contempt. The Royal Commission has stated that the refusal of former ministers, in this case, to attend the public hearing is a refusal to answer questions in a public hearing. Those former ministers were at the heart of decisions that affected hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. Cost livelihoods, careers, businesses, connection with families, and had a disastrous effect on the economy and future of our country – yet they refuse to be held to account. The public deserve an answer about why they are refusing to be held publicly to account.