Tabuteau Fletcher: Standards and Accreditation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Standards and Accreditation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 04 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:496. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First):I commend the member Melissa Lee—although she is not here—for her appointment as the Commerce Committee chair. She was part of training us as new MPs over the 2-week programme and I say to her may her professionalism reign.Simon O’Connor: In martial arts or—FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yes. This bill arises from a review that was undertaken by the former Ministry of Economic Development in May 2007. It is important to note that the findings suggested that the infrastructure relating to standards and accreditation was actually basically sound and specifically that a discussion document also released by the Ministry of Economic Development had no actual submissions regarding the governance arrangements of these Crown entities. This bill sets out to ensure that the New Zealand standards and conformance system is viable and functioning well. It has been noted that in order to do this the Standards Act 1988 and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972 will both be repealed.Just because I question the timing of this bill does not mean that New Zealand First is against what it sets out to achieve. New Zealand First in fact stands in support of this bill because we are a party that always supports New Zealand consumers and ensures they are well looked after. Beyond this the stated intent of the bill is to ensure that the New Zealand standards being developed align with priorities such as innovation and trade facilitation to develop a more productive economy. As stated last week in speaking to the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill New Zealand First will always support legislation that seeks to improve the frameworks within which New Zealand business operates.To frame New Zealand First’s stance on this bill we need to ask the following questions: will it meet the needs of business and—importantly—consumers moving into the foreseeable future; and will our regulators be able to work effectively and efficiently within the frameworks being provided for here? I quote: “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) make provision for standards and conformity assessment systems in New Zealand that—(i) are consistent with international practice; and (ii) facilitate trade; and (iii) protect the health safety and well-being of the public:”. There are questions to be asked with regard to all parts of this purpose statement. Does consistency compromise safety to New Zealand consumers if the current international standard is less than what we would ourselves accept? Access to consumer goods from around the world exposes New Zealand consumers to a plethora of experiences and useful and admittedly sometimes completely redundant gadgets but related to the first part trade is good so long as our New Zealand standards are maintained. Both of these questions I have asked always come back to the safety of the New Zealand public. New Zealand First believes that this should always be our first concern.The bill sets out to establish the independent New Zealand Standards Approval Board. Alongside this there will be an official position created—namely the NZ Standards Executive. This person will be responsible for the oversight of New Zealand’s standards and will be employed directly by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.I earlier asked the question of whether this bill supports our local businesses. My interpretation at this stage would suggest that the intent is there. It is fair to say that internationally aligned standards will facilitate trade. Those same standards will allow for innovative businesses to understand what is required of them before they even begin their development and what is required with regard to standards across a large international cohort of trade partners. Understanding these requirements and what the international competition is able to take advantage of in their own home countries will allow New Zealand innovators and entrepreneurs to take advantage of our own competitive advantages available at home.To continue it is noted that this bill will ensure that we are able to maintain confidence and credibility in the standards development and approval process and in the process of accreditation. This credibility is so very important for New Zealand businesses looking to export their goods. New Zealand First would like to see a high level of assurance that the standards and conformance system is responsive to demands from industry and of course our consumers.Although I commend the bill its stated intent to operate on a financially sustainable footing and its being undertaken in a cost-effective manner we must be wary again of so-called cost savings compromising the delivery of what is clearly an essential service. I make reference to our border security as an example of so-called cost savings where an entire industry in several regions across our country lost billions of dollars. I also use a more recent example of the so-called cost savings in the tertiary sector which are now leading to the dismissal of staff and the shutting down of core departments within large institutions. Cost savings are now compromising the delivery of what I would deem to be core services. It is on record that this bill and the standards committee in particular will have oversight of $20 billion worth of goods. This is an essential service and must be adequately funded.With regard to the function of the board I commend the intent to clarify the role of the board. Governance and operational issues can blur the lines of what exactly the role of the board members is. It is of some concern that the board is embedded within the ministry and also that the board would be appointed by the Minister. I understand that the preliminary feedback from industry players suggests that this model is not ideal.As with many international issues New Zealand business seems to bear the burden of harsher requirements. We need to be confident that as stated import businesses can be more assured that the products they are importing are much more likely to be up to standard. If we can be assured that international standards do conform to and match our own high levels then this kind of regulation implemented fairly around the world does work both ways. That is to the advantage of New Zealand businesses. When we can assume that other countries and manufacturers are working to the same standards as we are then we can be sure that the playing field is an even one. I appreciate that we cannot legislate for other countries but our committee can be advised to keep this kind of standard in mind in its considerations.Conversely in order to support our export market international markets should feel comfortable with New Zealand’s standards. Currently our standards are well regarded internationally and these cannot be compromised. I acknowledge the level of complexity that many markets and industries involve. They involve incredibly rapidly developing technologies and so a smaller committee for standards should be more responsive in an evermore rapidly changing world.There are many questions around the margin questions about the detail. As stated New Zealand First supports this bill. However given some preliminary conversations with industry that spoke against some of the detail provided it is essential that the public of New Zealand be given their chance to speak to this bill. Thank you.