Architects and Supervision

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 5, 1 October 1935, Page 11

Architects and Supervision

Sir,—ln its refusal to grow up, its cloistral indifference to change, and its unawareness of the passing show, the N.Z.I.A. is perhaps unique among the professional bodies. While disclaiming responsibility for Mr. Barnard’s well-in-tentioned amendment to the N.Z.I.A. Act, it says nothing of the attempt in 1931, with Mr. Wright’s assistance, or a .more recent attempt this year, without it, to secure exclusive use of the word “architect” to its membership. 'ln both attempts.the assistance of the unregistered practitioner was anticipated, and the apatjiy or inaction of the Government and local body officers affected, taken for granted. . No doubt the action of the legislature in allowing the registration of "optinietris'ts” as "opticians,” and similar occurrences, gave members of tbe N.Z.I.A. cause to think that no exception would be taken to their monopoly ot such a” common dictionary name as that ot "architect.” Why not also that of “engineer,” a profession which suffers grievously from the competition of the amateur and from local body membership, to say nothing of the interference of the “unregistered” back-seat driver? So far from agreeing with Mr. Greenish in his belief in the advantages to the public of the registration of various trades and professions, I am of the opinion that, following the registration of the plumber, the word might with advantage have been expunged from the dictionary of tbe legislature. The” “mildness” of the “suggestion ’ to the Wellington Education Board by Mr. Johnston that only N.Z.I.A. members be employed, and that such only arc engaged by the Health Department, invites the information that even this department does not always employ “registered ’ architects. Also, it would appear as though there are degress of competence even among "registered” architects engaged in hospital work, if a recent advertisement in tlie pages of “The Dominion” Ims any meaning. It mav be well if the officers of tbe N.Z.I.A. gave heed to the powers invested iu them bv the legislature by the Act of 1913, which, in effect, macle them the “Architects’ Registration Board.’’ How have they carried out tbeir functions? Have they confined these to such as would normally be agreed to by a board whose membership was not exclusively ot N.Z.I.A. membership? How has the compulsory registration fee of £6/6/(ndw £5/5/- for practising members) been expended? How does such expenditure compare with that of other registration boards, that for engineers, for example? I venture to suggest that replies to the foregoing questions will present more than sufficient reasons for the failure of the N.Z.I.A. to secure to its ranks all those practitioners to whom these matters are evident. . , Further, in reply to Mr. Greenish s claim that through the assistance and encouragement of the institute, “many young men of outstanding ability have become qualified.” I would state that I have never known where such helu was a deciding and essential factor, but am aware of eases where the institute membership (unofficially, of course) has skilfully placed the obstacles of belittiement and deprecation in the way of any possible competitor. May"! repeat my former suggestion to the institute, that it abandon its untenable position from which it continues to belittle itself in efforts to discount the unregistered architect in private practice and in public employ, aud ask, wit.i that humility befitting a great profession pregnant with possibilities for public good and the allcviaHon of human ills, for a registration board on which it will be represented? In this wav the institute will relieve itself of unpleasant duties, which cramp its style to the detriment 01. its concentration on matters which might better become it than a policy which in turn begs for help, or damns with deprecation. —I am. etc.. PROFESSION. Wellington, September 28.