Tabuteau Fletcher: Standards and Accreditation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Standards and Accreditation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3413. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I stated in the first reading of this bill and I will say it again that this bill arose from a review undertaken by the Ministry of Economic Development at the time some 8 years ago. It is highly important to note today that at the time the ministry actually stated categorically that its findings showed that the infrastructure relating to standards and accreditations was basically sound. Further the discussion document released by the ministry had no actual submissions regarding the governance arrangements of the current two Crown entities. I question therefore the need for this debate and the use of this House’s time for this matter at this present time. There are some issues and we have talked about some of those but they could have been dealt with within the existing legislation.New Zealand First like many of the other parties in this House supported this bill through to its first reading so that individual New Zealanders in the form of consumers the industry itself workers and experts within the standards and accreditation sector could have their say. It is becoming harder and harder I note for the public to have their say with this Government so when the opportunity arises we would support it.Many submitters spoke about the lack of sufficient detail provided in order to make truly informed submissions in the latest round of discussions. They suggested that this lack of detail will undermine the confidence that they and our trading partners need in order to maintain the current high standing of our standards and accreditation system. The concerns that the select committee heard from the public and industry have not been addressed in this bill. Some minor alterations were made by this Government in response to these concerns and New Zealand First does acknowledge the concerns around transparency in particular. The possible arising of conflicts of interest would actually we concede have been dealt with in quite a great level of detail and we believe would have answered those concerns.Tonight the members of the National Government have spoken about the need for the accreditation and standards system to move forward and do what it is that we need to do so that we can be a viable international trading partner. They seem to ignore the fact that we can do that currently under existing legislation. We do not need this bill and I will go into detail on the feedback from submitters as to why most of those who submitted also do not think we need this bill.We are not convinced firstly that these changes are actually needed as I have pointed out. Secondly having put this bill in front of this House and the public this Government seems to be undermining and compromising what to date has been an internationally recognised standards and accreditation process. I would submit that this Government is actually taking us backwards with this legislation.This bill’s intent is to ensure that the New Zealand standards and accreditation system functions well and meets the needs of businesses regulators and consumers. And actually these are admirable goals and New Zealand First would support this bill if we believed that these goals had been achieved in the rewrite. As has been raised repeatedly by others tonight New Zealand First shares the following concerns. In my address on the first reading of the bill I stated that we are yet to see evidence that proposed changes will ensure the financial viability of the standards and accreditation process. Unfortunately we continue to be concerned with statements made by the regulatory impact statement that if these new bodies sat within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment then there would be cost savings. No evidence has been submitted to be presented publicly justifying this stance.New Zealand First has yet to see evidence that the proposed changes will ensure the financial viability of the standards process. Although it could be argued that the system will be viable perhaps my interpretation of “viable” is that it will continue to function at a bare minimum which does not actually ensure safety or integrity for the New Zealand public or New Zealand businesses in an international context. This viability has still not been addressed. There has been no evidence or insufficient evidence to suggest that this bill will be any better than what we currently have with regard to efficiencies particularly around operational costs.We keep seeing a particular clause time and time again with this National Government. I refer to National’s numerous pieces of legislation where the Minister empowers himself or herself to pick the members of boards or committees. New Zealand First does not believe this is good enough. One of our key concerns is centred on the lack of independence that both the New Zealand Standards Approval Board and the renamed Accreditation Council would have. This concern was spoken to tonight but we do not think it has been addressed adequately.These two entities cannot and will not be independent if they are working within the governance structure of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. The governance structure within the ministry means a lack of independence for the standards and the setting body. There have been no substantial changes to the appointment process. The Minister and the Minister alone will have the responsibility to appoint all members.Ministerial appointments and orders of council bypass the democratic process whereby each and every New Zealander can take the opportunity to have their say. The very possible and highly probable lack of representation of consumers and workers on the new board and council is of real concern to New Zealand First. There is a reference in schedule 1 of the newly worded legislation that states that when making his appointments the Minister must consider skills and experience including knowledge of the sectors that use standards but actually it is not sufficient. It is insufficient it is too broad and it does not ensure a real and meaningful representation of those directly affected by the matters relating to goods services processes and the practices of them.There is a significant lack of representation of consumers and workers under this new structure. There is nothing in the reworked bill that is specific enough to allay the fears that dispute this bill. This system and framework is supposedly seeking to represent consumers. Will consumers be able to contribute in a productive legal fashion? No they will not. All that consumers will be able to do is protest and complain from outside Parliament if the Government passes this bill. New Zealand First says that this is not good enough.To repeat we lack confidence that this bill will provide a voice for our consumers and the industries that are affected. This reworked piece of legislation still talks about a preference being given to the facilitation of trade within the criteria for accreditation schemes. We have a concern that there is no balance to this and that preference may be given to practices or players in order to facilitate trade whilst compromising standards. Is that a likely and reasonable assertion to this House? Under this Government without the independence we would seek from this bill yes it is more than likely.Hon Judith Collins: He’s reading his speech.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: I am. Given many of these issues that will undermine the whole framework around standards and accreditation I do not think that New Zealand’s reputation in this space will be upheld under the proposed changes in the bill. Submitters spoke to the Commerce Committee about this very issue.Standards need to be accepted internationally. Our trading partners need to have faith in the New Zealand system. If they cannot find that confidence and if they cannot be assured that New Zealand’s standards and accreditation process has not been compromised by a lack of impartiality and a question mark around its operational capabilities then we do New Zealand business a disservice.In closing I address the National caucus in particular specifically given the changes here to legislation. Other than the removal of the repeal of the two main pieces of legislation affected there are 40 other pieces of legislation that will need to be altered in order to ensure that this bill has its proper impact on the New Zealand economy. But given the recent history in this term alone with the number of amendments to legislation that this House has had to consider and work on I would caution this Government that it is putting too much of a burden on an under-resourced unit within this Government and it could create—and I suggest will create—problems. We need to look after our New Zealand businesses regulators and consumers. This bill does not do that. Thank you.