THE ARCHITECTS BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 197, 19 August 1913, Page 9

THE ARCHITECTS BILL.

•'; JtJBfeATIWG A MONOPOLY.

EpJOCAJL TO IyvTjRKTXG MEX.

.1 ;'A : .protest was raised, at .the meeting tof "the" drey 'Lynn Borough Council, last

' .-.sight, against some of tlie provisions of v -ifcKe Architects Bill, now before Pariia- "'? ment. The question was raised by Mr.' ll'J/Vf: Tattersfield, 'who said he thought ; -jtie -Council should enter an objection •to'iUfe measure as Grey Lynn' was really :" J» working man's district.-and if the .bill i'tvos passed in its present form it would "-add unnecessary cost to'-the erection of S iomes. - Very few architects were em- ,,, ployed now to design houses for working ' f ..people-,-nor-were their services necessary. '/.--Be thought the matter should be reV : "ferred to the.Mayor (who was himself a ■S- huiJder, and knew what he was talking '-'" about) to enter a protest from the C-oun- :'- , cilagainst anything in the bill which he .deemed against the interest of a district •c like- Grey Lynn. The' Mayor (Mr. G. Baildon) said there ''■ -were a few clauses in the hill which .-would also affect local bodies as well as 1 ' private individuals. -He considered the ' WchiteCts were asking for something to .. ' -which they had absolutely no right, and. - rfcbat was a- monopoly. The bill provided ". .itihat a man must he a member of the ■'• TAstatute of Architects if he wanted to i ,earn. his living in designing buildings. -2fow,-he knew some really good architects, 'as fair as dwellings were concerned, who were not members of the Institute, ' ' and who, if the bill became law, might "'■ .not he• admitted to membership. One clause of the bill w-as - that anybody -practising as -an architect, and not a member of the Institute, should be liable .. ito a penalty not exceeding £50. As a ':-' -Milder, he often gave a man a plan for a house, but not, of course, for public ;"competition -or tendering.. It the bill . ...passed, if w.is i question whether a ■builder w-Oiiitl be allowed.to do that in the future- He thought it would be as well to write fro—Mr." Bradney. deputymember for "rcy Lynn, and ask him to :• oppose, tlic bill.. Mr: Bru-ldon added that • it was doubtful what her.-if had -■"befp in-force, the borough engineer could ;■ frave. designed the quarry buildings. The Council, finally agreed to send a. protest to-the House against the passing of the Architects Bill. Atsthe Onehunga Borough Council meeting last night Councillor Stoupe asked- the Council to express an opinion •on the' Architects Bill". He argued that , 5t was unworkable, and moved: '■'That in' accordance with' the artion of the .. other local bodies, we strongly protest against the proposed Architects Bill now before the House, as being an inter- . .ferenee of our liberty and against the best interests of the community, and that the member for Mannkau be asked to oppose it in its present form on behalf of Onehunga." The resolution was .j -adopted.