More imposed ideological conformity, this time for architects – it’s no wonder institutions lose trust

12 May 2025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

More imposed ideological conformity, this time for architects – it’s no wonder institutions lose trust

The New Zealand Registered Architects Board is proposing new compulsory professional development criteria that would train architects on issues entirely unrelated to their profession. This breaches architects’ freedoms and is at the heart of why so many institutions are losing credibility, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

“Legally and philosophically, speech rights guarantee four things: 

• your right to speak, even if others find it offensive
• your right to stay silent, others can’t compel your voice
• your right to hear others speak, you get to access information
• your right not to have to listen to others. 

“Compulsory professional development legitimately requires professionals to participate in training, only when that training is directly relevant to their profession. The Registered Architects Board exists to maintain confidence in the architect profession. Straying from that is abusing their position to impose contested ideological positions.  

“The Registered Architects Board has followed the steps of many other professional regulatory bodies that create subjective, ideological hoops professionals must jump through in order to stay in the profession. 

“The proposed competencies “aim to ensure that architects meet evolving and ethical requirements to practice in Aotearoa New Zealand”, by embedding a particular focus on Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview) perspectives, indigenous knowledge, and cultural responsiveness.” 

“Make the case all you want that New Zealand needs a greater conversation around Te Ao Māori, indigenous knowledge, and cultural responsiveness. But imposing this on professionals as a requirement for architecture is illiberal. This sort of authoritarian imposition fundamentally contradicts the Board’s role of maintaining the public’s confidence and is at the heart of why the public continues to lose faith in our institutions. 

“If architects want to learn about these topics, by all means, they should be free too. But requiring architects to undertake training of an indisputably ideological nature infringes on their individual freedoms.

“We’ve written to Minister Chris Penk with our concerns, asking if he sees them as appropriate and necessary. We understand he was unaware of these proposals prior to us contacting him. We will continue to stand by the claim that holding or rejecting certain opinions should not threaten livelihoods.”