Clark David: Standards and Accreditation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Standards and Accreditation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 01 July 2015. Volume:706;Page:5023. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Put simply the problem that we were supposed to address with this bill was a lack of funding. That was the issue that came up again and again at the Commerce Committee. It was an issue that officials acknowledged was significant in the setting of standards and so on. It was a question that was legitimate to ask. But what we got and what we have with this bill is the answer to another question: what structure would make it look like we are doing something without addressing the real issue—the real funding issue? That is what we have got here in this bill. We have the answer to a different question—to a problem that may not even have existed in the first place.We have heard members opposite saying defensively that just because you bring an organisation inside another organisation it does not mean that it loses its independence. That was the argument that we have just heard from Brett Hudson the member opposite. We did not hear why you should bring it inside another organisation. We just heard that somehow when you bring one organisation under the purview of another it does not hamper its independence. Well I think that man—to paraphrase someone else—doth protest too much. I think that here we are in this Chamber debating a few sideshows when we avoid the real issue of funding that sits at the basis of the future of good standards and accreditation in this country.Many of the submitters whom we had in front of us in the select committee expressed concerns about risks from the change in the model. Of course there were concerns about being within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. We know from recent weeks that the culture that the Minister is setting within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment may not be in the interests of many business people in this country. I refer of course to the details that have come up about the expensive $70000 sign out the front and so on.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No no—Dr DAVID CLARK: This is germane to my argument and I will come back to it but I will try to make it clear so that I do not stray too far from the bill. This is about whether or not that department is independent enough and acting in the interests of those whom it is supposed to be serving. It is clear that the Minister has set a tone for that department that is about the interests of the big end of town. It is about $260000 sun decks it is about $140000 TV screens and it is about $76000 reception desks.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Dr DAVID CLARK: The Minister has sent a message that he is concerned with the big end of town. Those who would have standards and accreditations granted that are relevant and interesting for New Zealand businesses are often smaller businesses—those who are trying to grow in the economy those who are trying to diversify our economy which is desperately needed in an economy that is under threat from being too commodity-focused and from not having enough diversity and enough other industries to share the burden of growing our economy which leaves it all to the primary sector. So we do need businesses to be thriving.Part of what we learnt at the select committee and part of what those who came and gave their time and wisdom—those who were involved in the standards and accreditation process—said to us was that actually one of the most important things is that we have representation in international fora where international accreditation and standards are agreed. When those standards are agreed they can be agreed in the interests of some countries or in the interests of other countries naturally enough. One example that was brought up in the earlier stage of the debate was a simple power switch in the wall that you charge your phone with or that you plug your heater into. That could be said to be in an international standard at some stage in the future. If there is a debate about that who stands to gain from a particular standard that is set? It is probably the country and the manufacturers in that country that win the battle about what the standards or accreditation should look like—the ones who have the existing patents and the existing abilities structure and so on to manufacture those devices in that particular way.Up until now New Zealand has enjoyed a particularly good international reputation by virtue of having many hard-working people who have served on international committees to ensure that New Zealand standards are a part of that debate so that New Zealand industries can compete in the international market because the standards are set in such a way that New Zealand businesses can compete. So it does seem important that we continue to have that international representation in the standards and accreditation - setting process. In the select committee when these concerns were raised I have to say that I was not comforted that in the new model there would be sufficient emphasis placed on maintaining those international connections on having the strong international voice in that standards-setting process. It was something that came up again and again and it seemed that the focus had shifted and it was more about efficiency gains within the ministry and so on.The previous speaker brought to our attention this idea that they should be acting independently. Well I would like to read from a couple of paragraphs further down in the same bill the one we are debating. In Part 1 here clause 8(1) it says: “The NZ Standards Executive may delegate to any employee of the Ministry any of his or her powers or the performance of his or her functions or duties under this Act or any other enactment.” I want to ask how that would work in practice. What we see there is a ministry that as we already know I think is under the thumb under the micro-management of Steven Joyce who chooses the colours and layouts of the documents he prints. We have officials there who of course want to keep their Minister happy but who are likely to have delegated tasks that include carrying out functions that the Minister would like to see in the standards and accreditations. That statutory independence is not as easy to guarantee when you have the employees in a ministry as a subset of the ministry carrying out these tasks rather than a truly independent industry-led body.So I think that this is a legitimate concern to raise and it is one that was raised again and again and again by people in the industry those people who have been involved in the standards and accreditation - setting process up until now. Members opposite may say that they know better—that they know better—than those who were involved in standards and accreditation - setting up until now. Some of those who came to speak to us had been involved in the industry and had served it over decades. But I would say to members opposite that if they think that they know better and do not even have to take those considerations into account then they are showing just how out of touch they have become on that side of the Chamber. That is what we see here.Once again also we see here something that was designed as a cost-cutting measure as well without an eye to the bigger picture without saying: “How does this reflect upon us in the international setting? How does this forward our international interests? How does this grow our exports?”. We know that the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment is not meeting the Government’s target of 40 percent of our GDP as exports. In fact under Minister Joyce it started around 32 or 33 percent; it is now down around 27 percent and it is projected to drop further. I would suggest it is not the ministry that is at fault; it is the micro-managing Minister who has this programme going on then wants to select the pamphlet colour then wants to turn the document round then wants to reword his own text. My heart goes out to the officials who have to work with that Minister who is proving to be ineffective but is also chasing things down the wrong track. Here we have an example where we have had plenty of advice from the public plenty of advice from experts that we should do things a certain way but the Government has blocked its ears and said: “We know better we are going to do it our way and bother the public and those pesky people who work in the industry.”So my submission is that what we have here is the answer to a problem that does not really exist. That problem is around funding; it was not with the structure. That is what we heard from submitters and in fact we had additional risks within the new structure. One of the points I have not raised yet is that there is no worker or consumer representation in the new structure—again something raised repeatedly by submitters and given no convincing response from officials. Again my heart went out to the officials because one could see they had their riding instructions. They were given a clear picture of how things should be and it was very difficult to come up with legitimate explanations as to why it should be that way.So this is a bill that we will oppose. We do value input from the industry. We value having New Zealand on the international stage setting those standards helping to shape the future of the world markets—those markets that we want to be competitive in. Goodness knows that under this Government exports are plummeting as a proportion of GDP. We need it to be going in the opposite direction and we believe we need to actually get alongside industry instead of always knowing better than industry. I do not know why members on that side of the Chamberhate business but they seem to persist with telling business that it is wrong.