Faafoi Kris: Standards and Accreditation Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Standards and Accreditation Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 13 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7186. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Standards and Accreditation Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and his remarks. There are some issues that he raised that we would agree with on this side of the House but in essence since the select committee process we have had major concerns with how this piece of legislation has progressed.There was an issue fixed here and it was as the Minister pointed out around the financial viability of our standards process. I think there is no doubt that we agreed and that the Government has taken action to try to address that. But in this piece of legislation we believe the Government has tried to address that and has not addressed that but has created a completely new issue around the independence of our standards-setting process. Concerns were raised not just from the Opposition but—more important in this case I believe—from a number of submitters to the select committee who have had decades of experience in this field. I will go into that a little bit later in my contribution.I think that this is an example though—because of the Government’s inability to listen to some of those concerns—where the Government has looked a little bit out of touch with what the industry certainly and those experts in this field have been calling for. We supported this piece of legislation at its first reading because we wanted it to go to a select committee to have those concerns heard and we expressed concerns about the independence of the standards-setting body then.We thought and hoped that after concerns were raised by us and by submitters and being able to get some more scrutiny from officials through the select committee process the Government might see that it was worth listening to some of those concerns. But unfortunately in this case the Government ploughed on and the concerns of the Opposition and the stakeholders were not listened to. We believe that although the select committee did change this piece of legislation—for some it is better—it still has some fundamental issues that we do not believe have been addressed.We do not believe as I have said earlier that the issues around the financial viability of the process have been addressed and certainly we do not believe that the Government has made a positive move by putting the standards body which used to be independent and stand-alone within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. So we do continue to have concerns about that.A lot of concern was raised about the independence issue around our international reputation. I believe Minister Goldsmith raised that towards the end of his speech and said he was confident that New Zealand’s international reputation—a very good reputation; an excellent one as we have heard through the select committee process—would stay intact. Unfortunately that is not what many of the submitters who have been in this sector for decades said.I do want to take the House to some verbatim quotes from the select committee submitters. One from a member of the joint New Zealand - Australia committee on standards since 1995—a couple of decades of experience that should not be scoffed at—by the name of Diane Baguley said that she opposed the disestablishment. If I can read this from the submission she said she opposed “the disestablishment of the Standards Council and Standards New Zealand.” She “did not consider that the provisions set out for the establishment of the standards function within MBIE can adequately control the risks associated with the new structure whether to the management of standards development or the reputation of New Zealand in the international standards community.” so she was speaking directly to that international reputation. She went on to say: “The model proposed in the Bill if realised”—and this is what this third reading will do—“might even be used as an example by countries without robust government systems with undesirable results.” She went on to say with the example being that New Zealand is a well-respected country in the international standards community that the argument from less-reputable nations was that “If New Zealand does it this way then we should do it this way too.”Also another experienced person in the sector by the name of Patricia Cunniffe—I think if I remember—from memory she made her submission on New Year’s Day. So she is someone who could have been out there having a summer holiday but felt so passionately about this issue that she decided on New Year’s Day to send a submission on the Standards and Accreditation Bill to the Commerce Committee which I think is an absolute commitment to the cause. She went on to say also as a submitter to the Commerce Committee “I remain unconvinced that placing New Zealand’s national standards body within MBIE will indeed ensure that the Standards system is viable and well-functioning”.A matter of 5 minutes ago our Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Paul Goldsmith said that he was relatively confident of those two things yet we have got people who are dealing with this on a day-to-day basis—one of whom I mentioned made a submission on New Year’s Day—completely and utterly disagreeing with the Minister. That submission was made during the select committee process. Those kinds of sentiments I think to the detriment of this piece of legislation have not been listened to. I think she went on to say that the bill as it stands now is predicated on consumers being the recipients of standardisation and not participants. She wanted to make sure that consumers were at the centre of that process.There are other issues that we have with this piece of legislation that we have continued to voice during the select committee process the second reading and also at the Committee stage some of them being concerns that were raised by the Council of Trade Unions—some of our brethren who are with us tonight up in our caucus room. Those concerns were talking about not only the long-term financial sustainability of this piece of legislation and whether or not the standards process will be able to be continued as we know it but also were making sure that—they made a submission to try to make sure that there were protections within this piece of legislation for workers which is one of the fundamental things that we do. It is one of the fundamental things that the Council of Trade Unions does and that this side of the House does. But obviously that was not heeded to in this piece of legislation which goes to another piece of legislation that was passed earlier this year in this House around the protection of workers in the workplace—not just in the workplace but also consumers and the general public.I think that it is another sad and sorry state of affairs where we can have this piece of legislation come through this House and concerns again raised by people representing workers and the Labour Party and again ignored in this piece of legislation through the many stages when it could have been taken on board by the Government. That was a concern again of our brothers and sisters at the Council of Trade Unions.The bell has rung so I believe I have got limited time left but this was and is a missed opportunity for us to continue to keep our longstanding and excellent international reputation within the standards and accreditation community. But again it was overlooked and ignored by this Government. I think it is the very early stages of third-term arrogance where despite the people who know better or who have more experience in this field on a day-to-day basis the Government says: “No thank you very much. We know what’s best. We are going to ignore what you the practitioners believe is best and we are going to do what we think is best.” It does not solve the issue of financial viability around the standards process; in fact it might make things worse. It also creates another bigger problem around the independence of our standards-setting process which Patricia Cunniffe and Diane Baguley I think spoke about more eloquently than any of us could.It does matter that our international reputation stays intact and therefore for those involved it does matter that our standards process is independent of any Government influence. Although the Minister can sit or stand and speak on that side of the House and talk to the confidence that he has in independence and our international reputation well I am sorry Minister but those at the coalface disagree. I think this Government and that Minister ignores them at their peril.