Faafoi Kris: Standards and Accreditation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Standards and Accreditation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 01 July 2015. Volume:706;Page:5031. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you for allowing me to take some calls on Part 2 of this Standards and Accreditation Bill. I would like to focus on clause 40 which is the “Disestablishment of the Standards Council”. It is only a two-line clause but the Standards Council continued under section 3 of the Standards Act 1988 is disestablished.That sets up the ability for this Government to set up a new body that is housed within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and this is the NZ Standards Executive. This is the body that will be replacing the Standards Council and it is that lack of independence because of its housing within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment that we have a problem with. Just as I was saying on Part 1 there is massive concern that we are losing the Standards Council and we are having a new entity within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the NZ Standards Executive.I just wanted to continue with some concerns from the Building Industry Federation around losing the Standards Council. In its submission again and quoting from it—and I want to say that it is a very brave submission from the Building Industry Federation—it says that this bill to the extent that it “breaks with this historic global practice the Building and Construction sector was and is concerned that the position of Executive is now to be filled by an executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Development (MBIE) appointed by the Chief Executive of that Ministry.”The Building Industry Federation in its submission to the select committee which is the public’s opportunity to come and have its say says: “The industry does not question the integrity of the Chief Executive of MBIE but is concerned that the appointment process and the subsequent administrative tenor of the appointee will be influenced significantly and dominated by public sector and government requirements at the expense of industry requirements and needs.”Why has this Government which always claims it is close to industry and in touch with industry completely and utterly ignored the many voices of industry when it came to this bill at the Commerce Committee and completely and utterly ignored their concerns around independence and around whether or not the new structure affords itself to cover costs? It has completely and utterly ignored it because it has made no amendments to this piece of legislation—or no substantive amendments to this piece of legislation—at all after it left the select committee. They have been ignored and I think that that is a mistake and a missed opportunity from this Government to make sure that this piece of legislation was as good as it could have been. It is a missed opportunity and one that the Government should have seen coming at the select committee consideration.Clause 40 again is around the disestablishment of the Standards Council. The main aim in doing this was to deal with the lack of financial viability of the New Zealand Standards Council. Again in the select committee process we heard from a number of submitters who questioned whether the new structure within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment would actually solve that problem. A number of my colleagues have raised this issue. I think Dr David Clark did and my colleague Stuart Nash certainly did.Also this issue was raised by Diane Baguley and I have quoted her submission extensively through this debate. She is someone with around 20 years’ experience in this area and she has grave concerns not just about the financial sustainability of the standards process but also concerns around the independence which we share. Ms Baguley sent her submission to the Commerce Committee on 1 January; so concerned was she about this piece of legislation that on New Year’s Day she thought she would send her submission in. She said in her submission:“There is no guarantee that the new structure will in the long run save public money rather than merely shift it from one part of the budget to another. The effect on overall expenditure will be difficult to determine given that there will be practical limitations to the specificity of financial reporting within MBIE.”There is another clear reason there why this Government should have taken heed of a number of the recommendations from the submitters at the select committee. Clause 40 does provide for disestablishing the New Zealand Standards Council. A number of submitters said we should not have been doing this. The arrogance of the Government to not see that and to push on through—Chris Bishop: Ha!KRIS FAAFOI: Mr Bishop can laugh but his members sat around that table and listened to the industry submitters come along and for them it was an important chance to have their say. It is an important part of the democratic process—scrutiny of legislation by the people who are going to be most affected—but this Government did nothing. It pushed on and did not listen to people with decades more experience of this sector than the people sitting around that select committee table. I am glad to say that we on this side of the Chamber did listen to those concerns. We hoped that the Government was going to make changes through a Supplementary Order Paper that the Government may have brought through but to this date we have seen nothing and to this date we will probably continue to vote against this piece of legislation.This is a missed opportunity for this Government. I think that earlier on the Minister in the chair Paul Goldsmith said that the Standards Council which is being disestablished under clause 40 was not visible at all and that was one the problems that the Government was trying to solve. As I said in relation to Part 1 the solution that the Government had to that problem was a novel one. It was not to continue to keep it independent. It was not to give it more funding to ensure that it was financially sustainable. It was to morph it into a department that is probably the biggest department in the country—the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. It has taken in five or six other Government departments: immigration labour building housing and economic development. The problem was visibility so this Government said: “Well if it’s not visible let’s put it in MBIE where it will be even more invisible.” I do not think that those organisations that came to submit and were concerned about the disestablishment of the Standards Council will be impressed. They were not impressed certainly at the select committee hearing. I think they left hopeful that the Government would listen but it did not. There is nothing in this piece of legislation that in any way goes to meet the concerns that they had at the select committee and those have been well traversed.This is a Government that is actually in most areas trying to push responsibility away whether it be social bonds or whether it be social housing. Government members are trying to say that less Government is better. But in this instance they are saying: “That’s an independent body. Let’s morph it into the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.” That does not make sense to us. It means that because we are trying to solve one problem around costs we are creating another fundamental problem around independence and the industry wants independence to make sure that we have credibility on the international stage when it comes to our standards setting.We have got huge credibility there—we have—and we had submissions to the select committee and they did have concerns. I will just quote one more of those. It is from Diane Baguley again. She said: “I oppose the disestablishment of the Standards Council … I do not consider that the provisions set out for the establishment of the standards functions within MBIE can adequately control the risks associated with the new structure.”This is a case where this Government has burned the village to save the village. We are not convinced it is going to solve the issue around costs and we certainly know that it has created another issue around independence one that is fundamental and one that puts our reputation in this area seriously at risk.