Cosgrove Clayton: Standards and Accreditation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Standards and Accreditation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 04 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:489. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):I am pleased to see that down at the back the new members were not chloroformed by that speech by Paul Goldsmith because it was a cracker.I commend the new Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. Unlike Mr Foss he has grabbed his second piece of legislation and introduced it in the House. But I do make this point to the Minister. This bill is an interesting one because of course it was introduced in a different form by the Labour Government in 2008 to modernise and simplify the Government’s arrangements of the Standards Council and Testing Laboratory Registration Council and to separate their governance and technical advisory functions. So it was introduced in 2008. This crew comes into power—I think it was Mr Foss or maybe Mr Power; I am not sure—and the bill languished and was canned by the Government in 2012. And then after 6 years of reviews discussions interactions reports and a whole lot of other hot air we come back now to a piece of legislation that establishes a so-called independent statutory board to approve New Zealand standards. And finally this is being read in the House.Well I have got to say to the new Minister that he is better than the last guy because we know that the last Minister’s legislation was sort of like trying to pull barbed wire off a fence as his legislation sort of trundled through and was delayed and delayed. So I do commend the Minister not so much for the esprit de corps the zing and the vibrancy of his speech on such a colourful topic as New Zealand standards but for bringing it into the House with some swiftness. But I need to ask him—and I am sure he or other speakers will advise us of this—why after such a long gestation period 6 long years of almost total inaction except for a lot of hot air there is an expedited reporting date of 31 March. It could be that the Minister has decided: “Hey this has sat around long enough. My predecessor let it gather dust mould and other biological bits of matter and we’re going to punch it through.” Or could it be that he has adopted a model—and I think this is true judging by some of the commentary—that is out of step with what those outside the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment those in the standards industry would want?We will support this bill’s referral to a select committee because we want to allow those outside entities and those individuals who are experts and are not in the bureaucracy but in the real world to have their say on this piece of legislation. But it is a worry that a piece of legislation or the entity contained within it the standards authority is on the one hand called independent but on the other hand according to the option the Government has gone for it is embedded inside the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment which I am advised—looking at some of the independent commentary—is exactly what many of the external experts did not want. They wanted total independence because it is important on a more serious note that we take standards seriously.We note from the evidence from the tragedy of Pike River that where poor standards of operational practice are implemented you can get you do get and you have got sadly the tragedy that is Pike River. One could make the same argument in respect of some aspects of building practice—perhaps in respect of the Canterbury earthquake. Those are some issues that are yet to be tested I think in other places. But I just wonder why the Minister has adopted this model.Why did he not move to have a standards entity and agency that was totally independent from the Government bureaucracy? Yes that may well indeed come with a cost and yes I note from the legislation that it establishes a new independent statutory board to approve New Zealand standards. I grant him that. But one would have assumed that the board and all the tentacles that will hang off it in terms of its committee its authorities its approval etc. would have had more credibility had it been completely independent and outside the bureaucracy. This is now the embedded model and as I say to the Minister this is the feedback that we have had from those outside who are deeply concerned that we get this right—and I think this is not a particularly political bill.I think we all agree there should be high standards when it comes to operational performance and many of the examples of where we have been let down give evidence to this. However I think there will be some colourful debate about the particular model the Government has chosen. I would have thought that when standards are being put in place you would want not just statutory independence but also to be seen to have total independence from the bureaucracy whose authority is derived from the Crown. Then when those standards are approved declined or put in place it means that they are done independently and they have huge credibility and weight.I simply say to the Minister that I would be grateful if at some point—and I am sure it will come through the select committee process via the officials—he or his department could give some justification for this. It may be there is a good reason. I hope the reason is not just simply a bit of cost saving a bit of efficiency and moving a few chairs around in the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. I think the objective here cross-party is to ensure we get a robust agency to approve decline and police standards across the board in all the areas that the Minister has mentioned and especially in respect of safety—especially in respect of safety. Sadly through Pike River tragically through aspects of the earthquake and in other places like forestry the ports—you name it—all these issues derive from standards of operational performance. I would have thought we would want not only to achieve the highest possible standards but to achieve them in a way that they would have total independence and that they would be free from any sort of implied or direct influence from Government or the bureaucracy and therefore they would have huge credibility.I say to the Minister that we would like an explanation on this because we want to get it right. I say again that poor standards implemented well can lead to disaster and they have done. I think as we have moved through the Pike River tragedy and as the commission has reported through the earthquake and as we have moved through those sorts of graphic examples where there have been systems failures—one derived from mother Nature obviously—where buildings for instance did not live up to what we perceived they would do then surely that is the appropriate motivation to ensure that we get this thing right. Having an expedited reporting period I cannot quite understand—31 March. Given that this issue has hung around in various forms that it has almost sort of rotted in terms of stagnation I cannot understand why the Minister would want to somehow snap his fingers and punch something through. The point of going through the legislative process and especially the select committee process in respect of a bill like this is to get all those experts in to get them to have a very very close look at this legislation and to get it right. There is even greater emphasis on a bill like this because it is about standards in various guises but particularly safety standards.I would have thought we would want to take the appropriate time to go through the legislation and to ensure that we get it right. Or are we you know—excuse the pun—dropping our own standards of performance in terms of processing legislation because the Government has made up its mind that this is the model we are going to enact? “We have got it right. We will go through the motions of listening to the so-called independent experts. But we are going to do it anyway so let us not mess around. Let us punch through it.”I have always been of the belief that independent contestable advice put up against the bureaucracy has a massively high value—massively high value. Our courts are independent for a very good reason. But this is about an agency setting and approving standards which can be extremely controversial depending on what industry you are dealing with and a heck of a lot of lobbying goes on. But I would have thought you would want to give this agency almost the stature if you like of an Ombudsman or the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment so that they are totally removed from the bureaucracy and therefore by definition the Government thereby raising the standard and raising the credibility of that authority as they go through and impose or decline the highest possible standards—for instance to keep our citizenry safe.I do not like the fact that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is going to be so close. I do not like the fact that it is going to have certain powers as mentioned in this legislation. There should be I think total independence. But I welcome the Minister’s input. I welcome the department’s justification during the select committee process. My appeal to the Minister is that he take on board those experts who will come before the Commerce Committee that he will take on board their views and that he will not rush this process. If we do need more time then my plea to him is that he give us that time in order to get it right.