Goudie Sandra: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5403] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take another call on the Standards and Conformance Bill and to highlight yet another clause that gives rise to concern. Before I do so I say that people should be really concerned and alarmed about the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand because that is another one of those areas where there is agreement between Australia and— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It was set up in 1998 by the National Government. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well I still have concerns around that relationship and I hope—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I was not here then and I can still have concerns around it. If it is anything like the Trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency model then I think we would do well to have concerns around it. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 16 “Powers of Council”. I note that part of the function is to: “collect and disseminate information relating to conformity assessment including the publication of reports pamphlets books journals and other publications: (m) provide advisory and other services in respect of conformity assessment:” and: “(n) promote research into the methods of conformity assessment:”. Members should look at that clause coupled with the review and the consultant’s report back on the review which states: “there are a number of gaps in knowledge of the standards and conformance infrastructure amongst the business community; and some regulators have opted not to utilise New Zealand’s standards and conformance infrastructure especially in terms of developing or applying standards to support performance-based regulations and/or using third party conformity assessment. The report also found that some firms are not aware of the potential benefits standards and conformance may offer their industry generally or their individual business specifically.” I have to say given the compliance costs involved with this bill—which have been outlined admirably by previous National speakers—that businesses will not look to adopt any sorts of standards or conformity in regard to this bill at all if they assess what the cost will be as a consequence. 
Members should look at Telarc’s accreditation costs from the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. They are a significant part of Telarc’s cost structure being the third-largest cost after staff costs and rent and equal to approximately 50 percent of its 2004-05 annual profit. That is pretty substantial and pretty horrific and I suggest that not too many businesses will be rushing to get any standards or certification from that organisation. In 2001 the fee structure was amended in such a way that the impact on Telarc was a 30 percent increase in accreditation costs per certificate issued to its clients. That is a huge increase and it makes a huge dent into the profits of such companies. So how can they possibly try to remunerate any staff when those sorts of costs are involved? 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel waxes lyrical about wanting to reduce compliance costs in this country yet when push comes to shove she does absolutely nothing—in fact she did the reverse. This bill is a classic example of the ignorance of this Government around fiscal capability and responsibility. The Government has no idea of what its actions continue to mean for businesses in this country with the pervasive increased costs it keeps dumping on them and this bill is a hugely significant example of that. 
We note that the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand charter states that it is a not-for-profit organisation. One has to wonder what on earth it is planning to do with all of those fees and whether with the new agency being created it will start imposing a lot of other constraints and conditions on all sorts of businesses and requiring them to meet all sorts of standardisations. 
When we look at the other provisions that have already been outlined we see that the Minister can identify any sorts of specifications. New section 13(2)(m) inserted by clause 16 allows the Testing Laboratory Registration Council to: “provide advisory and other services in respect of conformity assessment:”. For goodness’ sake! The Government cannot even do that for itself let alone for the public of New Zealand. It has failed miserably to provide an example to the New Zealand public in the way in which it conducts its own affairs yet it expects the New Zealand public to have confidence in the way it acts on behalf of business.