Auchinvole Chris: Standards and Conformance Bill — First Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Standards and Conformance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1024] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Standards and Conformance Bill going to the select committee. With reference to the last speaker I tell her that she should read page 9 of the explanatory note headed “Statement of consultation undertaken”. The paragraph headed “Stakeholder consultation” states: “They wanted to see effective transitional provisions included in the legislation and noted that the proposal will result in increased direct costs to them as a result of higher accreditation fees charged by JAS-ANZ.” 
Maintaining confidence in our standards and in the conformance of the same with their associated infrastructure is very very important to New Zealand and to New Zealanders. We are known to be a people and a country that both holds to high standards and conforms to high standards. There is also a high expectancy that the organisations and infrastructures responsible for being guardians of those standards will fulfil the required task. Occasional breaches of standards—some of which have had truly tragic results—always serve to emphasise the expectancy the population has of our standards. So this is not a light matter; it is very very serious. I would like to think that it is not just a New Zealand characteristic but that it is fundamental to the way we live. I would like to think that certainly in a political perspective it is a National Party characteristic to have high standards—and I think we saw a demonstration of those in the result we were told of this morning. 
It is also a National Party characteristic to have high behavioural patterns that reflect those standards. National is the party that demonstrates those things in so many ways: in the conduct of the recent campaign in the preparation and delivery of policy in the training and inclusion of new candidates and indeed in the induction of new MPs into caucus and into the House. The standards and conformance of this side of the House I think can be considered to be exemplary. If only I could look across the Chamber and feel that the same occurs on the other side of the House. Those members seem not to have the same level of enthusiasm energy and dynamism that is on constant display on this side of the Chamber. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: To continue and I do not intend to use the full allocation of my remaining 7 minutes— 
Hon David Carter 
: Oh I bet you will. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I will try my best; all right let us do that. As I was saying before lunch the standards and conformance of people on this side of the House can only be described as exemplary. If only Opposition members could look across the House to see the same enthusiasm—I am searching for enthusiasm but I see none—energy and dynamism that is on constant display on this side of the House. The present Government and the cross-bench MPs of its attendee parties get to look across at a whole new batch of MPs—budding future leaders of a high standard and conformance a mature group of mid-career MPs and a fine front bench in the full flower of activity—compared with the view that we have of a sad group of members who have gone to seed in desperate need of weeding pruning and replanting. Indeed one has even heard those members described somewhat uncharitably as “the complete dried arrangement”. But that is not the case on this side of the House. 
But as I said earlier there are concerns with this bill which is a serious matter. It is a very important bill. One of the concerns we have which was mentioned by a previous speaker is the addition of two new objectives which the Standards Council develops and promotes. They are “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility”. I have serious concerns that the inclusion of these seemingly well-intentioned objectives will be of concern to many. These objectives in the hands of the present Government will almost inevitably impact on the activities of individuals and groups through regulation by stealth. Promoting social responsibility smacks of voluntary codes until such time as people do not comply after which regulations will be imposed to introduce compulsion. The breadth of possibilities open to bureaucrats under such phrases as “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility” is very very broad. 
One of the reasons this bill is being introduced is to try to tighten some of the descriptions that are used in clause 12 which is critical of the breadth of intent. But it almost sounds like a pre-glasnost socialist creed or perhaps something from the darker days of social revolutionary change in parts of Asia. I shudder to think what could be included under “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility”. 
In all though we support this bill going to a select committee where its concerns and intentions can be thoroughly considered and thoroughly examined and people can express their views on the bill in detail.