Auchinvole Chris: Standards Amendment Bill Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Auchinvole Chris: Standards Amendment Bill Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:634;Page:5531] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak against the Standards Amendment Bill and the Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill. The bills are not supported by National largely because they fall short of the mark like so many of the Labour-led Government’s supposed initiatives. When will the Government ever get it right? Where and why does the Government not get it right? The answer to those questions will be a topic of increasing public interest I have no doubt over the next 3-week adjournment and beyond. 
In the meantime in this the third reading we can reflect on the passage of this legislation which was formerly the Standards and Conformance Bill. I note the kind comments from those on the other side of the House about the work the Commerce Committee did on this legislation and I appreciate those because the legislation indeed required a lot of attention. It has been examined by the committee. I note the adverse minority report and the comments therein and I will be addressing those during the next few minutes. 
The legislation seeks to develop systems that will be of assistance in developing and ensuring the integrity of New Zealand’s setting and maintaining of standards—a very important aspect of our commercial life. But it goes not quite far enough. A number of issues raised by submitters to the committee highlighted that and we have heard a number of speakers in this House address aspects of the legislation. We heard in detail from my colleague and friend the Hon Dr Nick Smith who spoke on the vacillations of certain players in the timber industry where truth itself seems to have been compromised and when anyone who purports to present it afresh is put under incredible pressure not to speak up. 
Hon Member 
: They were sacked. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: They were sacked. One of the advantages of entering Parliament following a fair stretch of a career in business and commerce is that one does not have too many illusions over the need for authoritative standards to be set for public protection. Again this legislation falls short of the mark in achieving those. If one also has experience in dealing with the standards—or lack of them—in jurisdictions overseas then one can see the experienced level of protection that is required to protect the innocent the unassuming and the trusting. This legislation falls short of the mark in providing that. 
I never expected to hear in this House revelations of such an appalling lack of standards in the building industry as were detailed by Dr Nick Smith during a speech on this legislation. The reality is that ordinary people without an in-depth knowledge of building materials and that which constitutes an effective remedy for rot need protecting—and I include myself in that category of people who do not have the capacity time inclination or knowledge to look beyond the claims made for a product on the manufacturer’s label. 
It is clear that we are now living in a new era—an era when things have been changed and socially structured to meet the ideological requirements of the present Labour Government. Instead of being able to depend on things as we used to terms such as “buyer beware” have suddenly taken on a whole new meaning. We should now beware not only of faulty products but also of not being able to depend on the standards that have been set. The legislation falls short of the mark in correcting that. 
We heard of the leaky homes disaster which affected 15000 homes. We heard that it is a calamity of a scale equal to the Napier earthquake. Standards New Zealand was created as a consequence of that earthquake. Surely the adjustments in this legislation before us now should seek to do more than just tinker and modify the standards. Again the efforts have fallen short of the mark. 
The legislation’s key provisions will clarify the situation regarding the accreditation of testing and calibration laboratories and certification services. The requirement to have those services is a very important element in ensuring New Zealand’s competitive edge in an international environment. Our products and services have to be of a standard that will reflect a quality that can be depended on. The availability of a sound and efficient standards and conformity assessment infrastructure is a key element for ensuring success in not only export matters. We have to have the means of ensuring that local people and local users can develop confidence in domestic products so that those products are not unfairly displaced by imported substitutes. Our standards have to be rigorous and recognised internationally and we have to use testing procedures that withstand international assessment and critical analysis. 
Again there is a haunting echo to these words as one gives consideration to recent events emanating from this House. Those events are repeatedly being reported in the media as showing a lack of standards in the New Zealand political arena— 
Shane Jones 
: Oh rubbish! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: —it is not rubbish—be they associated with Mr Phillip Field or with the questions addressing the use of public funds in election campaigns. 
Shane Jones 
: Exaggeration! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is a sort of stain I say to Shane Jones on the floor of the House. It is a stain that is at risk of spreading outside and indeed is at risk of staining our reputation overseas. How such an ethical lapse supports the sort of legislation we are looking at at present is a bit hard to imagine. 
But to return to the legislation I say that there are continuing concerns from this side of the House over the addition of the terms “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility” to the legislation. I sit on the Commerce Committee and I have not heard members opposite make anything like a satisfactory explanation of what the implications of adding those terms will be. How are the concepts of “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility” to be applied to the establishment of standards and laboratory testing? How will those references be applied in a scientific sense to determine the criteria to be used in relation to testing and certifying products processes and services? It seems a very subjective measurement to me. 
Let us see what the Minister of Commerce the Hon Lianne Dalziel said about it. In introducing the legislation she said that the technical amendments in it will amend two Acts: the Standards Act 1988 and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972. Dealing with the amendments to the Standards Act Ms Dalziel said that they are designed to ensure that international and domestic confidence in New Zealand’s standards and conformance infrastructure are maintained. She said: “the Standards Council through its operational arm Standards New Zealand develops and publishes standards that are agreed specifications for products processes performances or services.” She said that the amendment would: “clarify and expand the scope of the council’s functions to include the preparation or recommendation of codes of practice handbooks specifications and other material produced by international standards bodies.” And then—here we go; here is the kicker—she stated: “The bill will also extend the development of standards in a manner consistent with New Zealand’s international trade obligations to include minimising environmental risks and promoting social responsibility.” I find that to be a fictitious suggestion. 
We have heard in detail from my colleague Pansy Wong about the cost and cost recovery aspects of this legislation which are a concern not just to the Opposition but to those who anticipate having to meet the legislation. I really share her concerns. Let us take the example of a submission made to the committee by Health and Disability Auditing New Zealand. Under the International Accreditation New Zealand system that organisation’s total costs for 3 years would be $18915. Under the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand— 
Pansy Wong 
: How much? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Does the member really want to know how much it will cost under the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand? Members should remember that the first figure I gave was $18915; the new figure under the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand is $155823—10 times as much. 
To conclude I say that this legislation falls short of what is required—it will not do. A far more substantive reform is required. Such a reform needs to be able to address the matters that were raised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It needs to reflect the sorts of standards brought into being initially in 1932 following the Napier earthquake. It needs to be leading legislation that governs the standards in those areas that it is specifically designed to deal with. It needs to reach beyond where it is at the moment. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.