Clark David: Standards and Accreditation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Standards and Accreditation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3421. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): It is a pleasure to get up to speak on this bill and to follow that member Kanwaljit Bakshi whose wide-ranging speech I must take issue with at several points. I think some of the claims made in that speech about capital debt and the Business Growth Agenda must be challenged. They cannot be left to lie on the floor of this House without being addressed.Similarly some of them were raised by the Hon Judith Collins who made—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do they relate to the bill?Dr DAVID CLARK: I assume they relate to the bill otherwise you would have stopped them in their tracks. The Hon Judith Collins raised the issue of taking responsibility on standards. The implementation of this bill hangs on the ability of the Government to implement it. I think we could reasonably doubt that this Government has the ability to implement this bill effectively based on its own track record in dealing with standards. That is the simple point I would like to make. The fact that standards are important was raised by the previous speaker the fact that they are important to our international trade was raised by several members opposite and I think it is important to recognise that this is a Government that has failed to diversify the economy. If those members say that setting these standards is a part of its growth strategy and I do believe that is part of what they were saying I think they are mistaken.I also think that a lot of the puffery we have seen in the House this evening does not reflect the very genuine concerns that were raised in the select committee as we debated the issues through. The issues do hang around what kinds of standards are set by whom and in whose interests and those are the matters that we should be debating in this debate this evening I believe.We are having an argument about whether and how we adopt the correct standards that are in New Zealand’s long-term interests. There was a certain irony I have to say in having Judith Collins raise the issue of the Government taking responsibility on standards. There was a certain undertone I think in her presentation. Whether she was challenging the Government over the matters of the Cabinet club or the Skycity deal and its lack of transparent standards and lack of accountability around that or the setting of the way in which the decisions around sending our young people overseas to Iraq was dealt with; whether it was how the Government Communications Security Bureau set-up was done—again in a non-transparent and unaccountable fashion as has been borne out over time—whether it was about corporate welfare and about how the deals were done with Rio Tinto or Chorus; or whether it was about how the Novopay standards were set and how the accountability around that was run I understand she will have some concerns. I have no doubt she has got some concerns.As my colleague behind me Clare Curran was saying there is always a subtext with that member opposite and I take her point there. So we do struggle on this side of the House to understand the talk of standards from that side—the way that those members say it is about the Government taking responsibility from some standards. In Judith Collins’ own words: “I don’t care what standards. They could be any standards.” Well it might be a start but there is certainly some irony in those comments that has to be noted right from the outset in my contribution.I want to also address a point raised by Melissa Lee the chair of the Commerce Committee who raised some critical comments about home baking and the level of performance in that respect. We will not go into the possible impugning of my reputation around baking that might be implied there but I do want to say that the issue she raised about having an electricity jack around the world which formed an important part of her speech has to be challenged. She said: “Wouldn’t it be good if we all had the same electricity jack around the world?” and she is right in one sense but she could be absolutely wrong in another and I think this is what the whole debate hinges on. The answer is yes and no. Yes if it is a safe phone jack that reaches a suitable standard and ideally one that is manufactured in New Zealand using New Zealand intellectual property. If that is what the world standard is and New Zealand is there at the standard-setting and sets it up in our own economic interests then yes we do want the whole world to be using the same jack to charge our phones or any other household items. But if the jack that the world is adopting is set to a Third World standard is made cheaply and is unsafe then no we do not want the whole world to have the same electricity jack. There is the nub of the issue. Actually without knowing it I suspect Melissa Lee has cut to the absolute core of what this debate is about.One of the issues that was brought up by many submitters as we discussed it in the select committee was how the setting of standards will be funded. We have already acknowledged that it is a cost-cutting measure. This is a way that the Government has seen to short-circuit processes and cut costs. That is not in itself a bad idea. If there are good costs that can be cut and we all benefit from them well no one would argue against that. But submitters raised concerns about our reputation in international fora and how they will be funded as budgets are squeezed in the area of standards setting and accreditation and about whether New Zealand will be at the table when decisions about the future of shall we say electricity jacks are made. Will there be New Zealand representation at the table saying: “We should have a world-class standard. And by the way in New Zealand we actually have one of the best manufacturers”—for argument’s sake—“of this particular product.”? Let us have a look at whether that should be the basis for setting the standards that the world adopts.We heard from several submitters their concern that this particular representation would wither away and New Zealand’s economic interests would not be protected. That leads as we know down the track we are already on which is towards an economy more and more and more focused on one or two commodities—on trading houses in Auckland currently on the dairy sector and on our overexposure to China in the primary trade area. These are concerns that the Reserve Bank holds. They are not concerns held just on this side of the House by the Labour Party; these are concerns that the Reserve Bank has been iterating over and over and over again. They affect every New Zealander.The prosperity we enjoy is based upon having a sound economy—an economy that in our past has been sound but is looking more dangerous in our future as we focus more and more on fewer and fewer commodities. We have seen our credit rating slip under this Government. That means it costs more to borrow money from overseas. It is harder for New Zealand businesses to get ahead. This is a Government that seems to be out of ideas and it is making cuts where they may actually harm New Zealand’s long-term interests and our ability to diversify.The previous speaker Mr Bakshi raised the issue of the Business Growth Agenda. The Business Growth Agenda which he spoke to has a goal at its heart of raising exports from 30 percent of our economy to 40 percent of our economy and that is a good thing. Judith Collins if I can quote her said: “You know trade is what we survive on. It is all important.” and yet this Government opposite has overseen drops in those international trade percentages. They are dropping under this Government’s oversight and it is through policies such as this one which we are putting through the House that these things are being put at risk. Our future prosperity our future security as a nation is being put at risk when those members opposite make cuts without thinking through the consequences when they do not listen to the submitters to the select committee and when they adopt an arrogant out-of-touch attitude that says: “New Zealanders we don’t care what you say. We in National have the answer and it is more of the same. Keep going down the same track. We’ll survive. Hang on. Shut your eyes. Trust us.” Well Mr Key New Zealanders are falling out of love with National and with the track that sees us dependent on fewer and fewer and fewer commodities and sees us focused on trading housing and on speculation in the economy.The economy becoming vulnerable and the economic credibility that is eroding away will cost this Government at the next election. Those members on the other side of the House know that. I can see that their heads have dropped again. They know that this week as the Government comes to announce its Budget it will not have anything in it that ordinary New Zealanders are after. Ordinary New Zealanders are already anticipating that they will not get the wage rises that were promised. They have already been told they will not get the surplus that they were promised. We know that the export numbers are dropping and the economy is becoming more vulnerable. This is a Government that is out of ideas and out of touch. We will not be supporting this bill.