Goudie Sandra: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5459] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member who is about to speak but I seek leave to table a set of statements outlining the noise-testing procedures currently in place and recently introduced. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that? Is there any objection. There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I simply challenge the member Mr Harry Duynhoven to take a call. If he wants to contribute to the debate I would be delighted to have him answer the questions. Instead I seek leave to table the very good member’s bill that is in the ballot in the name of Nicky Wagner which will actually show some leadership on the issue of noise control for vehicles. 
The CHAIRPERSON 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: In speaking to Part 2 I would just like to look at the powers of the council and also at the amendments to testing laboratory registration. I note that International Accreditation New Zealand has made a substantial submission with regard to that. Its members are concerned—they want to clarify—that the issue of competition created by the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand for inspection body accreditation is currently the subject of review by the Ministry of Economic Development. The council is concerned that continued competition for inspection body accreditation by the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand risks compromising confidence in and the credibility of New Zealand’s accreditation system for inspection bodies particularly in regulated areas critical to safety and public health. 
 Actually speaking of public health I say we are concerned about the Government’s intention to require water quality standards throughout this country. It will place unbearable costs on to ratepayers to try to meet those water quality standards. That is a huge cost. We have a community of about 35 households and 95 percent of the water is used for stock purposes yet they will be required to meet the water quality standards set by this Government at a cost of over $500000. That is an insurmountable cost for any small community. Those communities just cannot afford to meet those sorts of standards. 
The very Minister in the chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel says that standards are set with the input and consultation of all parties involved that have a major interest in them. I challenge her to take a call and explain the input into the water quality standards from all of the councils throughout New Zealand that will have to meet those standards. I put it to the Minister that that consultation was poor in the extreme and that communities did not support having water quality standards set. Communities want to be able to make those decisions for themselves. They want to be able to choose the standard of water quality they want for their communities. If they want to set a lower or reduced standard they should be able to choose that standard—it should be up to them. In actual fact the water quality in the Canterbury area is so good that communities there are penalised by the water standard. Their water quality far exceeds the standard yet the activities they have to undertake to meet the standard reduce the quality of their water. 
In talking about the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand I would like to identify one of the other submitters’ concerns: the compliance costs. Of course the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand states in its charter that it is a not-for-profit organisation. We should remember it is a joint committee between Australia and New Zealand. It has 10 members and six of those members are Australian. It is meant to be a not-for-profit organisation yet in 2005 its profit before tax was $773000. That is pretty good for a not-for-profit organisation. We have to ask ourselves what the Minister was doing. Was a compliance report required? What was the assessment of the compliance costs involved in all of that profit? Was there an assessment of the charges as was asked for by a number of the submitters? It is quite clear that the compliance analysis for this bill is so poor that we could consider it to have not been done at all. 
I will go back to my original concern around the amendments to testing laboratory registration and about International Accreditation New Zealand and its competition with the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call to explain how she has met the concern that was raised by International Accreditation New Zealand about the competition from the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. In the council’s view the very same reasons that support that system having sole responsibility for the accreditation of certification apply equally in the case of International Accreditation New Zealand having sole responsibility for the accreditation of inspection. It is critical to the credibility of New Zealand’s accreditation system that International Accreditation New Zealand has sole responsibility for the accreditation of the inspection bodies. It is a pretty big concern for that organisation and perhaps the Minister may like to take a call and tell us how she will address those concerns.