Sharples Pita: Standards and Conformance Bill — First Reading 
Sharples Pita: Standards and Conformance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1026] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 It makes an interesting change for this House to be focusing its attention on standards. Indeed at first we thought the bill was about addressing the proposed code for parliamentarians which the member for Manukau East the Assistant Speaker Ross Robertson is putting forward to the Standing Orders Committee. Across the Chamber the honourable member for Rodney also referred to the need for ethical behaviour. 
Standards are something we have a great passion for in the Maori Party. We are firmly committed to contributing to a high standard of behaviour in this House and to ensuring that members agree to work together treat each other with respect and act with integrity. Without even looking at the bill we were happy to promote conformance with acceptable social standards of behaviour compliance with practices and values that promote mutual respect and harmonious relationships. It does however always pay to look at the detail of the bill in order to identify what standards we are talking about. The standards in this bill are specific to the trade health and safety of the environmental world of which the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council are key elements. They are standards and specifications in relation to health disabilities business environment and building. They are standards that provide a basis for consistent and acceptable minimal levels of quality performance safety and reliability. The Standards Council develops standards for goods and services while the Testing Laboratory Registration Council assures everyone that the standards are being met. 
So how does this legislation apply? How will it apply? Indeed can it apply? Can it make a difference to the standards of goods and services? When we were looking for a topical example yesterday we found the case of a festive taxi driver who was fined for attempting to spread Christmas cheer. The Hamilton driver known simply as “Butch” says he was banned from work after disobeying the taxi uniforms policy by wearing a Santa hat. Butch told the press that he was ordered to remove the offensive headgear earlier this month but refused and got a fine of $50. I guess that is a case of standards being applied to the most extreme degree. It is important to maintain standards and it is something that we in the Maori Party are committed to but that is probably a case of carrying a good thing too far. 
One of the bill’s key achievements will be to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council. In thinking around how that will apply there can be no more dramatic an example than what was termed the “unfortunate experiment”—the results of the Gisborne inquiry into the National Cervical Screening Programme. In 1990 when the programme was launched the scheme was initiated without any performance standards in place. Ten years later when the Gisborne inquiry was called for there were no standards no performance indicators and little ongoing monitoring and evaluation. If members recall the Gisborne inquiry revealed that only 32 percent of the smears in which Gisborne laboratories detected abnormalities were marked as high-grade. In other words 68 percent were missed. What does that mean in real terms? It means that 616 women had missed high-grades 577 women who were referred for colonoscopy were diagnosed with cancer after May 1999 and nine women died from cervical cancer. That is the level of crisis that provides the context for demanding improvements in standards. 
What the Gisborne inquiry found was ample evidence of an unacceptable level of under-reporting. It found very poor standards at Gisborne laboratories which lacked both internal and external quality control. It found that Dr Bottrill had failed to gain accreditation for his laboratory and worst of all there was a severe lack of monitoring and evaluation of the laboratory performance which meant that Dr Bottrill’s under-reporting went undetected. Had those contracting with cytology laboratories understood and adhered to the importance of quality assurance then the requirement for laboratories to be independently accredited by the Testing Laboratory Registration Council would have been enforced. There is no question that there are serious issues with the standards and conformance that operated with the National Cervical Screening Programme. The Maori Party will continue to raise questions about the programme particularly why more Maori women have developed and died from cervical cancer than non-Maori women. In the year 2000 the death rate for Maori women was 8.1 for 100000 but for non-Maori women the death rate was only 1.9 for every 100000. Why is that the case? If we are really going to get serious about standards why should we not set in place standards that mean something and under which Maori should enjoy at least the basic minimum that non-Maori do? 
That example brings me to another point about the bill. The majority of standards are developed in partnership with Standards Australia. The function of registering certification bodies comes through the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand which was established by a treaty between the Australian and New Zealand Governments in 1991. The bill aligns the functions of the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council with international standards and conformance norms and practices. It does that in essence by transferring the authority of our body the Testing Laboratory Registration Council to the joint Australian and New Zealand body the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. Although that is good in terms of lining ourselves up with international standards we have to look at the other side. The context of the bill is the Government’s programme of strengthening the trading relationships between New Zealand and Australia and with other countries that conduct conformity certification programmes which is yet another example of our own autonomy—our sovereignty—being compromised in an attempt towards a closer relationship with Australia. A transfer of authority to another body lessens our own Government’s sovereignty and the ability to determine domestic standards and conformance. 
The Maori Party must also ask the question about whether the Government has consulted with its Treaty of Waitangi partner before signing trans-Tasman agreements. Earlier today I spoke about the importance of the Treaty as a foundation of our constitution. As I said then the Treaty is our primary document. It is deeply philosophical and it is the appropriate document for Aotearoa at this time. It also guides us in all matters of domestic and international negotiation as indeed it should in this bill today. I also need to advise the House that there are many indigenous nations who look at the Treaty of Waitangi as a model for their nations. 
So we ask the House whether tangata whenua will be specifically consulted in developing and recommending specifications to minimise environmental risks and promote social responsibility as proposed in the Standards and Conformance Bill 2005. Or will there be two different standards as demonstrated by the figures from the Gisborne inquiry? I remind the House of the difference in the death rate from cervical cancer in the year 2000: 8.1 for every 100000 Maori women and 1.9 for non-Maori. As my colleague Nandor Tanczos also reminded us this morning there are two standards for the use of language in this House. Te reo which is an official language of Aotearoa is accorded an inferior position in comparison with English. Na reira Nandor Tanczos tena koe e whakapuaki mai i o whakaaro ki te Whare nei tena koe. 
[ 
And so thank you Nandor Tanczos for disclosing your thoughts to this House; thank you. 
] 
Social responsibility is surely about taking responsibility for the outcomes for all in Aotearoa ne?No reira tenatatou. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.referred to Commerce Committee