Now architects have to hold particular views, too?

If all the stories we’ve told you about those who are censored today in New Zealand demonstrates anything, it’s that the fight against those who oppose free speech comes with a human cost. At the moment, it’s individual professionals who are paying the highest price.

You’ll likely have heard of practitioners in Chinese medicine having to be accredited in ‘cultural safety’, real estate agents being forced to learn about Māori gods, and nurses’ competency standards not listing ‘clinical care of patent’ until the fourth priority.

Now, it’s architects under fire. Would you support us in challenging yet another professional regulator straying outside its remit to impose contested ideological content on practitioners, on threat of being kicked out of their profession?

Let me be clear, this is what ‘groupthink’, imposed ideological conformity, and simply censorship looks like today.

We refuse to sit back and simply let it happen. If we lead the fight, will you stand with us today?

The New Zealand Registered Architects Board is consulting on adding new ongoing professional requirements that architects understand Te Ao Maori. 

I am both a practicing doctor and lawyer – I spend half my time caring for geriatric patients, and half my time in court. My patients/clients deserve to be able to have confidence when I'm giving them a medical examination or legal advice that I know what I’m doing and am licensed to do it.

That’s a world apart from me having to think certain ways about certain issues, or be compelled to receive ‘training’ on something that isn’t relevant to my profession. 

That’s because free speech guarantees four things – and we need to keep all four in mind:

• Of course, we all know free speech means we get to say what we like, whether others find it offensive or not.  

• But it also means we get to stay silent when we don’t want to speak (no one can compel us to speak). 

• We also get to hear others speak. As Jacob Mchangama says, ‘free speech presupposes listening’. You get to listen to someone else’s ideas, even if others don’t like them (the mob at Albert Park should have kept that in mind in 2023).  

• And, we don’t have to hear others speak if we don’t want to listen to them. The idea free speech means we can say things that others find offensive only really makes sense if we can combine it with their right not to have to listen to others if they don’t want to.

The proposals by the Architects Board breach these freedoms, undermine free speech in New Zealand, and continue to erode the fundamental right to think for ourselves and speak for ourselves.

The development of new professional requirements for architects are being based on these questions about creating ‘spaces that genuinely embody Te Ao Maori values and principles; ways Matauranga Maori informs sustainable design practices in Aotearoa, and ways Indigenous knowledge is respectfully and ethically integrated into the design process... empowering Maori communities to shape the build environment.

Simply put, the new 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 throughout professional standards. This includes alterations to the National Standard of Competency for Architects qualification, through which new architects are educated and trained.

The New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB) is “a statutory entity tasked with registering, monitoring and disciplining architects. This role is to protect the public, which in turn protects the reputation of the architectural profession. It is therefore the role of the Board to regulate and enforce the best interests of the public in relation to the architectural professional.” 

Imposing ideology on practitioners and telling them to stand in line or be deregistered does nothing to protect the public. In fact, it’s instances exactly like this that lead the public to have less and less trust in our institutions. And in reality, that's a dangerous place to be. 

Let me be very clear: each of these questions is entirely legitimate. Anyone who wants to explore these questions should be absolutely free to.

What is illegitimate is to claim that the Architects Board is empowered by the Government to impose the answer to these questions on practitioners and require them to participate in training that implements the Board’s answers to these questions.

Remember, architects have trained for years and are required to be licensed. I’m not arguing in the slightest that this shouldn’t be the case. What I’m arguing is the Board has a specific remit to maintain confidence in architects. They shouldn’t stray from that, and absolutely shouldn’t stray from that in a way that so explicitly breaches the rights of practitioners.

Our team has contacted Chris Penk, the Minister responsible for the architects board, who we understand was unaware of these proposals and will be holding the board accountable. 

However, we need to do more. We need to engage the industry and support architects in speaking up to protect their right to work as architects, and not all think the same way on contested issues. That's what our team is turning to now.  

This is why I’m asking you to make a donation today to support the work of the Free Speech Union.

Yes, we stand with professionals when they are challenged for speaking out (in fact, we currently have 15 cases on the go)- but that’s just responding to the symptoms. It’s exactly work like this that makes regulators feel empowered to come after those who speak out. An investment today pays strong dividends tomorrow, as it's hard to fight for free speech... without free speech.  

Our team sometimes feels like we’re watching our house burn down and only have a garden hose to fight it. But we’re still making a difference, getting cut through, and between you and me, to stretch the analogy maybe a bit far, I think we’re saving the house.

But the simple reality is all our team’s passion, strategic insight, and drive isn’t enough if we don’t have the resources to fight the fire.

Roderick Mulgan | FSU Chairperson