Auchinvole Chris: Standards and Conformance Bill — Second Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Standards and Conformance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5172] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 The Standards and Conformance Bill is very important legislation. But as with so many of the supposed initiatives of the Labour-led Government it falls short of the mark. It seems there is a fundamental difficulty in their ranks and it emerges every day in the House. We heard my colleague and friend the Hon Nick Smith speak on the vacillations of certain players in the timber industry where truth itself seems to have been compromised and anyone who purports to present it afresh is put under incredible pressure not to speak out. 
One of the advantages of entering Parliament following a fair stretch of a career in business and commerce is that one does not carry too many illusions over the need for authoritative standards to be set for the public’s protection. This bill falls short of the mark in trying to do this. If one also has experience in dealing with the standards—or lack of them—in other jurisdictions in overseas countries then one can see the experienced level of protection that is required to protect the innocent the unassuming and the trusting. The bill falls short of the mark in doing this. 
I never expected to hear in this House revelations of such an appalling lack of standards in the building industry as detailed by Dr Smith today. The reality is that ordinary people without an in-depth knowledge of building materials and that which constitutes effective remedies for rot—people like myself—do not have the capacity time inclination or knowledge to look beyond the claims made for a product on the manufacturer’s label. But it is clear we are now living in a new era—an era where 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 “buyer beware” has suddenly taken on a whole new meaning. Buyer beware—beware not only of faulty products but beware of not being able to depend on the standards that have been set. The bill falls short of the mark in correcting this. 
We have heard that the leaky home disaster—affecting 15000 homes—is a calamity equal in scale to the Napier earthquake. Standards New Zealand was created as a consequence of the earthquake. Surely the adjustments in this bill before us now should seek to do more than tinker with the standards. But are the members on the Government side of the House open to bringing about real change and acknowledging the true state of things? I guess in our experience no. In the leaky homes business I remember the Minister at the time doing very little in public to even acknowledge there was even a problem. Everybody else who could watch television news read a paper or speak to builders seemed to know there was a problem but I recall that at the time Mr Hawkins explained he had not been told by the industry that there was a problem. Everybody else knew but he had not been told through official channels and therefore he felt there was not a problem. 
I was put in mind of this situation more recently in listening to the Hon David Cunliffe Minister of Immigration addressing questions regarding the Taito Phillip Field affair from Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith about the transmission of information from the Immigration Service through to the Associate Minister of Immigration at the time the Hon Damien O’Connor. In this case we have not quite been told that Mr O’Connor did not receive the information but we sure as hang have not been told that he did receive the information. So I guess the question is: which was it—did he or did he not? I find it deplorable that a member of the House—regardless of which party—can be left in a position by his colleagues to the extent that the House does not know the level of information he received or did not receive. This uncertainty or paucity of standards leaves individual members at risk of suggestions that they were complicit in the whole scheme—the grubby sequence of events. Again this is an example of this present Government failing to come up to the mark. 
Standards are what we are ultimately judged by—not spin or subterfuge and not by addressing questions instead of answering them. I like to think I would be the last to expect of others those standards that I would not be prepared to adopt myself. Therein lies the veracity of the National Party calling for the Government to behave in a way that avoids any suggestion that it may be pursuing corrupt practices either in the Taito Phillip Field affair or in the question of election overexpenditure using taxpayer funds. 
If I was a young person with a scant experience of life beyond Parliament then perhaps I may be a little easier to convince of the transparency of the Labour response to situations that embarrass them. The reality is that after serving Her Majesty in a couple of armies and having a career in the New Zealand Dairy Board as an export trader operating throughout the South Pacific I am not inclined to accept such bland explanations as those currently on offer from Labour. Labour members must think all of us on this side of the House came floating down the Hutt River on a water biscuit if they really expect us to believe their rhetoric on the issue of Taito Phillip Field’s activities let alone the use of taxpayer funds in the pledge card business. 
But there are two other aspects about the standards being reflected by this Government towards its own misdemeanours. The first is the real horror that they believe their own rhetoric. The second is that they expect the public of New Zealand to swallow it too. I return to speak specifically to the bill before us noting as I do so that it calls for the addition of the terms “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility”. Sitting in the Commerce Committee I have not heard from members with anything like a satisfactory explanation for what the implications of adding these terms will be. 
Similarly the business compliance costs statement accompanying this bill lacks detail despite the shrill protestations and giggles from Minister Dalziel that they are committed to reducing compliance costs. Well the Minister can be as shrill as she chooses but the talk in the market place is that the punters are not holding their breaths. The statement on compliance costs does not qualify the increase in fees that the two certification bodies will face following a transfer of power from International Accreditation New Zealand to the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand or even why an increase is necessary. 
I seek the indulgence of the other side of the House— 
Steve Chadwick 
: This is dreadful. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: The member is quite right—this is dreadful. I seek the indulgence of the other side of the House to actually debate some of the issues. I recognise that would be difficult for them; I have heard very little by way of debate coming from that side in the year that I have been part of the House. It would be good if they did decide to debate and to give an explanation of the terms “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility”. They have failed to come to the mark. All we hear is oft repeated statements in a sort of endless and mindless cant not showing thought not showing insight just plugging the gaps and papering the cracks. The present Government should be aware that promoting social responsibility is part of the brief of us all and should be shared like the warmth of a fire. It is not something that should be put in legislation to be open to unspecified interpretation by Ministers at their whim. 
 To conclude this bill falls short of what is required. It will not do. A far more substantive form is required. It needs to be able to address the matters that were raised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It should reflect the need for standards that was recognised and initiated in 1932 following the Napier earthquake. It needs to be a leading piece of legislation that governs the standards in those areas that it is specifically designed to deal with and it needs to reach beyond by way of example. The present Government needs to consider the way it behaves in presenting to the public. 
I would be less concerned if the Government were to be the only recipient of fall-out from its truth-avoiding explanations but the reality is none of us in this House can effectively insulate ourselves from one another’s parties so we are separately and jointly judged by the public we represent. The lack of standards that the present Labour Government is now associated with is causing a stain on the floor of the House. That stain will spread not just throughout New Zealand but will start to affect our reputation overseas as honest brokers to deal with. That does not augur well for any of us. We do not want to be a country that comes up short of the mark in standards.