Goudie Sandra: Standards Amendment Bill Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Goudie Sandra: Standards Amendment Bill Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:634;Page:5528] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to the third reading of the bills arising from the Standards and Conformance Bill I want to acknowledge the fine work done by my most excellent colleagues particularly Pansy Wong in what is essentially a summing-up exercise of our concerns. I want to reiterate some of the many points already raised. 
Firstly what is the reason for the change? The explanatory note of the Standards and Conformance Bill states: “This Bill is an omnibus Bill that amends the Standards Act 1988 and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972 to align … with international standards and conformance norms and practices.” So what are the international standards and conformance norms and practices that require parliamentary time and use of taxpayers’ money? What is this most serious and objectionable transgression being perpetrated by the current system? Here in New Zealand we have the most awful practice of having two entities with the function of registering certification bodies. Is that not just awful? Well that is the reason for this change. So I ask members to please take a moment to appreciate the ludicrousness of that. 
The only thing in this legislation that gives a reason for the changes appears to be the fact that international practice is to have only one body in any country with the function of registering certification bodies. There is no rule. There is no set requirement. It is just the fact that other countries only have one so we could not possibly have two. We now have to just go along with what everybody else is doing and have one. I have seen nothing that suggests there is any sort of problem with having two entities. 
In fact I would suggest the contrary applies. I can see a bigger problem arising out of a change to having only one entity and that is of course the increased compliance costs—costs that submitters took great pains to set out for the Minister the Hon Lianne Dalziel but that have largely been ignored. We can just ask Telarc whose accreditation costs are equal to 50 percent of its 2004-05 annual profits. The impact of this legislation will see those costs rise 30 percent extra. That is a huge cost to Telarc and will be a consequence of this legislation. As my learned colleague Pansy Wong has said we have just to ask Health and Disability Auditing New Zealand whose costs under this legislation go from $18000 to $155000. So much for this Government trying to claim the high ground about reducing compliance costs! It has done the absolute opposite. The only answer that this Government has to anything in terms of compliance costs is to increase them. 
This legislation on the pretext of meeting not a standard or a requirement but some bureaucrat’s bright idea is now creating a monopolistic situation where costs can be loaded because people wanting accreditation will have nowhere else to go. The Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand the new sole entity identifies itself as a non-profit entity and has a membership of 10. Six of those are appointed by the Australian Government three of those are appointed by the New Zealand Government and one is the chairperson—and who knows where that person will be appointed from? The principal aim of the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand is to facilitate international trade. I might add here that the administration of the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand is in Australia so I presume that all the profits that are accrued after costs go to Australia and not to New Zealand apart from the fees that may be paid to the three representatives from New Zealand who are on the board. 
Perhaps a Minister might like to take a call and explain what happened to the level of standards and accreditation that applied to the importation of Australian rock melon. My learned colleague Shane Ardern has highlighted to the New Zealand public an example of a biosecurity breakdown with the discovery of fruit fly eggs in Australian rock melon released for sale in our supermarkets. That is just another example of the breakdown in our biosecurity systems and came from our National biosecurity spokesperson Shane Ardern. So where were the standards around the importation of that given that the primary role of the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand is accreditation and standards for international trade? Australian rock melon coming into our country is international trade so where are the rules around that? 
Biosecurity New Zealand assured bee-keepers that the import health standards on Australian honey were robust enough to allay fears about European foul brood. Yet Australian rock melons containing potentially disastrous fruit fly material passed through those same import health standards. Despite criticism from the Auditor-General about import standards and container checks nothing has changed. The fact that insects were discovered should have meant that the fruit was not released into New Zealand’s environment. Jim Anderton should be calling for an immediate investigation into how that occurred. 
It is ironic that Australia has refused to import New Zealand apples on the scientifically spurious grounds that they might have fire blight yet Australia’s imports are posing a major threat to this country that could cost us millions of dollars and here we are setting up in this legislation a single entity that has predominantly Australian membership and only three representatives from New Zealand. With the fruit fly discovery we have seen a breakdown in our biosecurity. Where is the real confidence that the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand will look after New Zealand’s interests when we have only three members on its board? So I have major concerns. 
I am really pleased that National is opposing this legislation because I think in time to come we will see it go against us. It will cost our exporters dearly through accreditation costs. Those costs have already been outlined to the Minister and neither she nor this Government is fronting up to the costs that this legislation will incur. Telarc put through some very good recommendations. It recommended that competition should be maintained by allowing International Accreditation New Zealand to offer management systems accreditation and that has been ignored. Failing that Telarc recommended that a mechanism is included within the Act either to regulate the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand’s fees for accreditation of certification bodies or to provide an independent fee dispute arbitration process. There must be some form of control of what that body can charge. Along with its predominantly Australian membership as I have already outlined that is a major concern and one that the Minister should have addressed but has failed to do so. 
The other major concern is around the new additions to our standards: minimising environmental risk and promoting social responsibility. I highlighted this concern in talking about cars. It is now coming to public attention that small cars although they may be seen as environmentally friendly because of their reduced fuel consumption are more dangerous than larger cars because occupants are less protected by the structure of the vehicle. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Why is that? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: The structure of the smaller vehicles puts the occupants more physically at risk if they have an accident with another vehicle. So on the one hand there may be an environmental benefit but on the other hand people are significantly put at risk. So what is going to weigh in the balance here in terms of the environmental risk against social responsibility and protecting people and their lives? That will be something that I think this Government will certainly struggle with. 
 The legislation seems like a lot of do-good nonsense. I am concerned about it because the standards are meant to be set with all of the participants having an input and agreeing to them. The Minister has already said that 80 percent are required to participate in the decision or otherwise the board makes it. I have some concerns about that. I do not think the standards are getting the full input from the general public or interested parties that they should get. I do not think the public have continuing confidence in this Government to put the right measures and controls in place. I think the water quality standards are a fine example of that lack of public confidence in the Government’s ability to set those standards. Communities want to make those decisions for themselves. The Government wants to try to control everything and it is going to do that through standards. The Minister has greater powers under this legislation and I think that will be to the detriment of New Zealand in the future in the way in which we set our standards.