Connell Brian: Standards and Conformance Bill — Second Reading 
Connell Brian: Standards and Conformance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5167] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 The report of the Commerce Committee stated that the key “objective of the bill is to ensure that international and domestic confidence is maintained in the standards and conformance infrastructure.” The Government and the institution of Parliament form part of New Zealand’s infrastructure so I want to take time this evening to examine the standards this Government has set itself and its conformance with them. The first standard was set in 1999 in the Speech from the Throne when Helen Clark stated that her Government would “restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process”. So how has the Government shaped up in the standard of the electoral process? “Not achieved” or “failed miserably” would be a kind interpretation. “Stole $882000 from the public purse” would be a more accurate description. “Lowered standards to an all-time low”— 
Maryan Street 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you assist me as to whether this speech is in any way related to the legislation before the House? If it is how so? If it is not should it be continuing? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I was quoting specifically from the commentary on the bill where it states that standards and conformance are about the infrastructure of New Zealand. I am talking directly to that point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that his speech must be relevant to this bill. It is not a general standards debate but relevant to this bill. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well I was quoting directly from the bill when I raised that point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have made the ruling. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Before I was interrupted unnecessarily I was saying that this Government has lowered the standard to an all-time low and that is how this standard will be scored in my scorecard and in that of the public of New Zealand. Now Government members want to do something even more cynical. Rather than conform to the standard they want to change it by retrospective legislation. So if that was a baddy let us see how the Government goes against the standard on the integrity of Parliament. Members in the last Parliament remember a Minister called John Tamihere who was convicted of fraud. He forgot to pay tax on a golden handshake—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated; I am on my feet. When I point to the bill I want the member to speak to the bill. Thank you. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I am happy to speak to the bill; I am speaking to the bill on the part that states “integrity of Parliament”. I am comparing the Government’s performance against that standard. The police had a prima facie case against David Benson-Pope—members might recall that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that this bill is not concerned with electoral standards or parliamentary standards. It deals with functions of the Standards Council which has no responsibility for elections or parliamentary standards. They are two different issues and I would ask the member to come to the bill. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am speaking directly to this bill because the commentary specifically states that one of its objectives is to deal with the infrastructure of New Zealand. The integrity of this Parliament is a key component of that infrastructure and I think I am entirely at liberty to speak about it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has been here for some time now. He is an experienced member and he knows better. This is his first yellow card. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Thank you for your direction Mr Assistant Speaker. I refer the House to clause 7(5) which allows for the Minister to direct the Standards Council to perform any function that the Minister sees fit. I am sure you cannot yellow card me Mr Assistant Speaker for raising concerns about having a member of the Government with that type of unfettered power particularly when that Government has a record of lowering standards in this House. That is something that is a legitimate debating point. 
But I will move on to something else that concerns me and my party deeply. My party will not be supporting this bill for a number of reasons. I have already articulated some of those reasons and I know that Government members do not like the truth being rammed home to them but it is the truth nevertheless. What concerns my party most is the lack of rigour around compliance analysis in this bill. The business compliance cost statement accompanying this bill lacks detail. Lianne Dalziel the member who introduced this bill said in the House a few days ago that she is a believer in full disclosure. Well it is a pity she did not make that comment to David Parker or Taito Phillip Field at some stage. When she drafts the regulations she should give those members a hand-delivered copy. 
What bothers me most about the analysis is that it is simply woeful. The compliance statement in the bill states: “The implications of this are difficult to assess.” We have a Minister who was on her feet in this House saying she believes in full disclosure of compliance costs yet she tells us that the compliance costs are difficult to assess. The statement continues: “If other countries do not have confidence in the New Zealand system for the accreditation of certification bodies New Zealand exports in a range of sectors including the food building financial services tourism and education sectors could be negatively affected.” That is how important it is but we are told in the compliance report that the implications of this bill are just too difficult to assess. That level of analysis is astounding. 
Maryan Street 
: It’s streets ahead of yours! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It is astounding because an economics student even one as poor as the member who is blabbing her mouth off at the moment would know better than to put into a bill the statement that compliance costs are just too hard to assess. Even the most fundamental matters of this bill such as the increase in fees that the two certification bodies will face following the transfer of powers from International Accreditation New Zealand to the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand are not identified. Why are those things happening if it cannot even be identified what they are? Why is an increase even necessary? Is it the cumulative effect of the hidden compliance cost in a bill of a technical nature just like this one that hit out at small businesses? Compliance costs in this country are driving businesses to the wall. When the Minister responsible for this bill has an opportunity to demonstrate that she is on top of the bill—and when she has a statement and a commentary on the bill that says it is critical to maintaining confidence in New Zealand’s infrastructure—she says despite her rhetoric to the contrary that the compliance costs are too hard to assess. 
In a speech to the Business Roundtable Lianne Dalziel promised that regulatory impacts analysis would become fully integrated into the policy development process and that means clearly identifying the objectives. Well has that been done in this bill? No. Does this bill consider any existing regulatory frameworks does it set out options making a risk and opportunity check and always asking whether the response is proportionate? Well it is all very fine rhetoric is it not but when push comes to shove the Minister’s response has been woeful. Not one member of the Government who has taken a call on this bill will be able to contradict me because the Labour members on the select committee know I am correct. 
There is something else that bothers us. I am looking again at the commentary on this bill under the heading “Committee consideration”. The commentary states: “Issues raised by submitters related to compliance costs”—I have covered that—“appointments to the Standards Council clarity of accreditation and certification roles and the transitional provisions. We are satisfied that the bill addresses these issues and do not recommend any amendments.” That is simply not true. The House cannot accept that when the National Party has a minority report in the commentary that specifically states that it does not agree and is not satisfied that the compliance costs of this bill have been satisfactorily addressed. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Get a haircut and get a real job! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Sober up Minister. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will hear no point of order from you thank you. Sit down please. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Exactly—if the member does not like it he should not give it. [ 
Interruption 
] The member is in his seat now and we are grateful for that. What we need him to do now is zip his mouth up. 
I will conclude by saying that the National Party simply cannot support legislation that has not gone through a due process of compliance analysis. This bill falls woefully short of that standard—it does not matter which way one does the analysis. 
Maryan Street 
: That is absolutely pathetic—just pathetic. Talk to your own colleagues. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Mr Deputy Speaker are you going to allow that type of personal attack? I am a sensitive new-age guy; I am not sure I can handle it. [ 
Interruption 
] Judging by the way the member walks in here I can tell he has obviously been in a place where he should not have been for a long long time. While he is here he makes very personal comments and you are letting it go by. I am deeply offended Mr Deputy Speaker—deeply offended.