Standards and Accreditation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStandards and Accreditation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 01 July 2015. Volume:706;Page:5018. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Standards and Accreditation BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary and key provisionsKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Mr Chair I promise not to mention the rugby—other than the mention I just made then. The Standards and Accreditation Bill while sounding like a mundane piece of legislation is actually a very important piece of legislation to ensure I guess standards so that the everyday things in life that we do are uniform and things work. As Labour’s minority report within the commentary on the bill has noted Labour is not going to support this piece of legislation. We hold some major concerns notably around the lack of independence of the new Standards Approval Board which this piece of legislation provides for and also because of the potential damage to our international reputation because of that lack of independence.To point towards that international reputation can I point to clause 7 of the bill which talks about the functions of the New Zealand Standards Executive. If you would allow me to just read clause 7 which states: “(1) The functions of the NZ Standards Executive are—(a) to assume responsibility for New Zealand membership of international standards organisations including the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission: (b) to ensure New Zealand attendance and representation at meetings of international standards organisations:”.Throughout the select committee process the Commerce Committee heard from a number of submitters who have a lot more experience in this field than I have—and certainly I think more than anyone around the select committee table has—about the new structure and the loss of our international reputation. A structure that was outside a Government department independent of the New Zealand Standards Council is to be placed within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.One of those submitters was a woman by the name of Diane Baguley who has been a member of the joint New Zealand - Australia committee on standards for 20 years now. She is someone with immense experience in this area. If I could read a portion of her submission to the select committee really to highlight the dangers of the path that this country will be going down if we change the structure of our standards formation as we are going to do with this piece of legislation. Diane Baguley said in her submission that “I oppose the disestablishment of the Standards Council and Standards New Zealand. I do not consider that the provisions set out for the establishment of the standards function within MBIE can adequately control the risks associated with the new structure whether to the management of standards development or the reputation of New Zealand in the international standards community.” I will just read that last bit out again and that is around “the reputation of New Zealand in the international standards community.” She went on to say that “The model proposed in the Bill if realised might even be used as an example by countries without robust government systems with undesirable results. New Zealand is well respected in the international standards community and an argument that ‘New Zealand does it this way’ could be influential.”We would have hoped that maybe the Government members on the select committee may have fed some of this feedback from the submitters to the Minister and maybe that is one question that I will pose to the Minister—whether they seriously did ponder whether the structure as it stands now was the correct one. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is becoming a rather large Government department and whether or not it is making the right decisions needs to be questioned given some of the recent headlines around that ministry. But certainly when we are looking at the functions of our Standards Council being morphed into the ministry we certainly have some serious reservations about that.I would like to draw on another submission presented to the select committee and that was from another woman called Patricia Cunniffe who is a consumer representative on standards committees both here in New Zealand and overseas. Her submission was in a similar vein to that of Diane Baguley. If I can take the opportunity to read her submission she said: “I remain unconvinced that placing New Zealand’s national Standards body within MBIE will indeed ensure that the Standards system is viable and well-functioning …”. The current bill is predicated on consumers being the recipients of standardisation not participants. She went on to say that “Clause 3(a)(iii) gives one of the purposes of the Bill as being to: ‘protect the health safety and well-being of the public but gives no place for the public to define their own acceptable levels of health safety and well-being.” So I think Patricia Cunniffe agrees with Diane Baguley but takes things to another level in terms of the safety of the public. I guess this is just another example of the submissions to the select committee that I think throw up some serious reservations and concerns as to what the Government is doing with this piece of legislation.It has obviously been a well-formed argument that New Zealand has a very strong reputation with some of these international organisations through some of our work with standards and there is serious concern from some of our most experienced and expert people in the field as to whether or not we are doing the right thing here as well. I think that some of the motivation or most of the motivation for this piece of legislation is to ensure the financial viability of the standards process. I think having listened to some of the concerns in the select committee that that was a real concern for those in that sector already. We do not believe that the changing of the structure will go any way to ensuring that the financial viability of the standards process will be any better than it was previously. We would like to know whether the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Goldsmith could clarify some of those issues. We would certainly be thankful to know whether or not more work has been done around that financial viability. I hope that the Minister in the chair will take a call.There were also concerns from the industry around representation and also some concern around conflicts of interest and funding. I do note there has been some amendment during the select committee process around the potential for conflict of interest and I think that is a good thing. As to whether or not it has gone far enough there is still a question mark and maybe that is something the Minister can address as well. But I believe that there are people especially those in our trades who are very concerned about what the bill proposed at the beginning of the select committee process and they might still share those concerns at the moment.Another joint submission that came through the select committee process was from the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand the Association of Consulting Engineers New Zealand the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia New Zealand Division and the New Zealand Institute of Architects—bodies that I do not think I would certainly have too many arguments with around the technical aspects of their work. Their joint submission said that “we believe industry consultation is vital to ensure the prioritised programme of work is appropriate. This will also ensure the continued buy-in and contribution by the key industry players” that wanted to ensure that “industry consultation be a mandatory requirement under the Bill.” I believe some of that may have been addressed but I am not sure whether it has been addressed in its entirety. Hopefully that is something that the Minister might be able to answer if he does decide to take a call during the Committee stage.FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): If I could just state the obvious and summarily go through some of the parts to begin my contribution tonight we are looking at repealing and replacing the Standards Act and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act. We are told that we are looking to consolidate legislation—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for us to suspend for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members the House in Committee on the Standards and Accreditation Bill is resumed. Before the dinner break we were debating Part 1. Fletcher Tabuteau had the call and he has 4 minutes and 35 seconds remaining if he wishes.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: It would be my special delight to carry on speaking after dinner. What I had started saying was that the intent of this bill when you look at it on paper is wonderful. It says something to the effect that the New Zealand standards and accreditation system functions well it meets the need of business regulators and consumers and we are going to consolidate and conform and make it all work well. That sounds fantastic but actually we are at a stage now where we have come to the Committee of the whole House and despite good respectful and intelligent contributions from the public from industry and from experts I would assert—and I will go through each part point by point—that the Government has not listened. It does not seem to have taken any of that good advice on board.So we stand here today and the meaning and the essential nature of this debate is so important tonight because the Government and its members need to hear that there are still issues. For example—and it was spoken of earlier—one of the key concerns centres around the lack of independence of the New Zealand Standards Approval Board and the renamed Accreditation Council. It was raised in the Commerce Committee. Many submitters spoke to the apparent lack of independence and they spoke about how it has been absorbed into the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment structure. Just as a commentary on the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment structure it was a laudable goal to bring all these disparate parts together and try to create some synergies with this kind of superministry but it is a disparate conglomeration of dysfunctional parts. If we add this to that Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment structure I do not think that you will—and I assert strongly that you will not—achieve what the Government sets out and puts down on paper.There have been no substantial changes to the appointment process. This was raised many a time. I spoke on it myself. Members of the Opposition spoke on this repeatedly and said that the Minister has too much power. The Minister is in charge of the appointment of every single person on this board of this committee. It is not good enough. Ministerial appointments and the orders of council bypass the democratic process. New Zealand First asserts that we are bypassing the democratic process and we are not giving each and every New Zealander their say. There was a part in the legislation where it speaks about how the Minister can appoint on advice from the industry but that is an option—it is not absolutely required. It is still too much power for the Minister. It is reflective of much of the National Government’s legislation of late where more and more of the selection of panels advisory committees or boards are in the hands of the Minister and seem to bypass a good reasonable and fair democratic process in terms of selection and therefore in terms of representation.We continue to be concerned about statements made by the regulatory impact statement that if the new body sat within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment there would be cost savings. Although the legislation speaks about recovering costs actually when you do the analysis of those parts it is pretty hard for the Government to prove that. Yes actually it is in the legislation that we will recoup our costs but it has not been proven. The analysis on the advice given still suggests that this Government actually is not creating efficiencies and it is—David Bennett: Why didn’t you vote for Ron?FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Haha! You have thrown me Bennett.New Zealand First strongly believes that our much-valued international reputation regarding safe accredited standards for goods and services processes or practices will not be upheld. One of the submissions was from one of our Australian counterparts and the Australian standards authority—excuse me if I have got the name wrong—spoke very clearly about clause 20 of the bill and how there was a lack of clarity in terms of understanding just what the legislation sets out to achieve. So we are being advised by comparable bodies comparable groups from our brother across the Tasman there our cousin across the Tasman and they are telling us that there is ambiguity in the legislation. They are suggesting that it needs to be tightened up.That was clause 20 but all parts of the bill—for example in clause 3 we arereplacing the word “public” with “individuals” and it has been discussed. It was about a definition and it was about accountability and it was bringing it down literally to the individual so that we knew what we were trying to achieve. What is the “public”—what does that mean—whereas if we are dealing on an individual basis we have some clarity; we have some understanding. There was a lot of debate around the definitions used in the legislationin clause 4(1). So for example “accreditation” is a term that was essential to the purpose of the bill but “testing” and “testing laboratory” are adequately defined in other pieces of legislation. So there is redundancy in the legislation and it just adds to the confusion because actually the bill itself is confusing as a whole.The next clauses clause 4(2) and clause 17 talk about conflicts of interest. The proposed amendments would target those with a personal conflict that was so large as to have a real bearing on the carrying out of the undertaking as a board member as a committee member or in the expert role but I think what we should do here and what we acknowledge is that the approach taken in clause 17 as introduced could have cast its net more broadly than intended and may have excluded some experts with knowledge crucial to the standards development committee. So although we applaud on the one hand the recognition that there is definitely the possibility of a conflict of interest and it needs to be addressed the definition in the legislation is actually perhaps too broad it was suggested and actually experts themselves might be considered as being defined as having a conflict of interest so they would not be able to contribute to the discussions as per relevant standards.It was recommended in clause 16A which requires nominees to declare any personal interests at the time of nomination that this could be part of the solution—provide more detailed functions of the committee chairperson so that you understand exactly where the conflict of interest might lie. Those were just some suggestions presented to the select committee. Again there does not seem to have been any movement and there does not seem to have been any attempt to listen to the advice provided. It was recommended that clause 7 would require the Standards Executive work programme to be published to make clear that access to archive standards so that there was access to the standards so that we would see what the decision-making process was. It is technical but in terms of your standards and accreditation how else are you going to go back and understand what it is that has come before and what it is that you are trying to achieve? Clause 20—BRETT HUDSON (National): It is with absolute pleasure that I rise to follow Mr Tabuteau after that rather professorial dissertation. I would like to talk right at the moment as we are on Part 1 about this issue around independence. I am drawn back to paraphrasing Daniel Patrick Moynihan who noted—and I will paraphrase so as not to bring the Chair into this debate—that the member is entitled to his own opinion but he is not entitled to his own facts. The facts are very simple around independence. Both the Standards Approval Board and the Standards Executive are granted statutory independence under this proposed amendment.I would draw members’ attention particularly to clause 7(2) for the Standards Executive and I will go to that clause and read for their edification that in the discharge of their duties and in the functions of the New Zealand Standards Executive: “In performing the functions referred to in subsection (1)(a) to (j) the NZ Standards Executive must—(a) act independently; and (b) have regard to–(i) the value of standards: (ii) the legitimate use of standards: (iii) the importance of maintaining expert input into the standards development process:”. Similarly in clause 12(2): “The Board must act independently in undertaking its functions under subsection (1).”So members opposite can talk about independence until the cows come home. The fact of the matter is that both the Standards Approval Board and the Standards Executive are conferred with statutory independence under this bill. Parliament cannot confer any greater independence than that. Having worked in the private sector I can tell you Mr Chair—because it is you and other members present—that actually co-locating in an office is not necessarily conducive to the collaboration that a private organisation might want to see. I have worked for multinationals. If you want to actually foster collaboration it is not achieved simply by putting people in the same building. So we confer independence on the people who need it most. They will work in an organisation for reasons thatsupport—and I will now go back to Part 1 of this bill—why we are actually making these changes.I draw members’ attention back to clause 3 the purpose of this bill: “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) make provision for standards and conformity assessment systems in New Zealand that—(i) are consistent with international practice; and (ii) facilitate trade; and (iii) protect the health safety and well-being of individuals.” Why are we bringing this function or these groups into the agency or environment of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment? Because that is the agency that is tasked with business development and helping us to understand how we can help businesses position themselves to grow in and outside New Zealand. It actually makes sense. If you are going to have standards that are going to help us to conform and to sell our products both in New Zealand but particularly offshore then actually having businesses working with the ministry that is tasked with helping to build innovation scientific progress and business development outside New Zealand makes extremely good sense. It makes extremely good sense to have these functions in the ministry.I will turn back for one moment because real-world examples are fantastic things. I am just going to return very briefly to the issue of independence. Within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment where the Standards Executive will reside we see today three extremely good examples. We have the Official Assignee we have the Registrar of Companies and we have the Commissioner of Patents. All three are independent bodies through statutory independence that reside in the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. Not a single member opposite—and not a single submitter—raised any question as to the real independence of those bodies albeit they reside in the same ministry that this bill would have the Standards Executive go into. Again if you just look at simple evidence—the member is entitled to his own opinion but he is not entitled to his own facts. Thank you.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Put simply the problem that we were supposed to address with this bill was a lack of funding. That was the issue that came up again and again at the Commerce Committee. It was an issue that officials acknowledged was significant in the setting of standards and so on. It was a question that was legitimate to ask. But what we got and what we have with this bill is the answer to another question: what structure would make it look like we are doing something without addressing the real issue—the real funding issue? That is what we have got here in this bill. We have the answer to a different question—to a problem that may not even have existed in the first place.We have heard members opposite saying defensively that just because you bring an organisation inside another organisation it does not mean that it loses its independence. That was the argument that we have just heard from Brett Hudson the member opposite. We did not hear why you should bring it inside another organisation. We just heard that somehow when you bring one organisation under the purview of another it does not hamper its independence. Well I think that man—to paraphrase someone else—doth protest too much. I think that here we are in this Chamber debating a few sideshows when we avoid the real issue of funding that sits at the basis of the future of good standards and accreditation in this country.Many of the submitters whom we had in front of us in the select committee expressed concerns about risks from the change in the model. Of course there were concerns about being within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. We know from recent weeks that the culture that the Minister is setting within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment may not be in the interests of many business people in this country. I refer of course to the details that have come up about the expensive $70000 sign out the front and so on.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No no—Dr DAVID CLARK: This is germane to my argument and I will come back to it but I will try to make it clear so that I do not stray too far from the bill. This is about whether or not that department is independent enough and acting in the interests of those whom it is supposed to be serving. It is clear that the Minister has set a tone for that department that is about the interests of the big end of town. It is about $260000 sun decks it is about $140000 TV screens and it is about $76000 reception desks.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Dr DAVID CLARK: The Minister has sent a message that he is concerned with the big end of town. Those who would have standards and accreditations granted that are relevant and interesting for New Zealand businesses are often smaller businesses—those who are trying to grow in the economy those who are trying to diversify our economy which is desperately needed in an economy that is under threat from being too commodity-focused and from not having enough diversity and enough other industries to share the burden of growing our economy which leaves it all to the primary sector. So we do need businesses to be thriving.Part of what we learnt at the select committee and part of what those who came and gave their time and wisdom—those who were involved in the standards and accreditation process—said to us was that actually one of the most important things is that we have representation in international fora where international accreditation and standards are agreed. When those standards are agreed they can be agreed in the interests of some countries or in the interests of other countries naturally enough. One example that was brought up in the earlier stage of the debate was a simple power switch in the wall that you charge your phone with or that you plug your heater into. That could be said to be in an international standard at some stage in the future. If there is a debate about that who stands to gain from a particular standard that is set? It is probably the country and the manufacturers in that country that win the battle about what the standards or accreditation should look like—the ones who have the existing patents and the existing abilities structure and so on to manufacture those devices in that particular way.Up until now New Zealand has enjoyed a particularly good international reputation by virtue of having many hard-working people who have served on international committees to ensure that New Zealand standards are a part of that debate so that New Zealand industries can compete in the international market because the standards are set in such a way that New Zealand businesses can compete. So it does seem important that we continue to have that international representation in the standards and accreditation - setting process. In the select committee when these concerns were raised I have to say that I was not comforted that in the new model there would be sufficient emphasis placed on maintaining those international connections on having the strong international voice in that standards-setting process. It was something that came up again and again and it seemed that the focus had shifted and it was more about efficiency gains within the ministry and so on.The previous speaker brought to our attention this idea that they should be acting independently. Well I would like to read from a couple of paragraphs further down in the same bill the one we are debating. In Part 1 here clause 8(1) it says: “The NZ Standards Executive may delegate to any employee of the Ministry any of his or her powers or the performance of his or her functions or duties under this Act or any other enactment.” I want to ask how that would work in practice. What we see there is a ministry that as we already know I think is under the thumb under the micro-management of Steven Joyce who chooses the colours and layouts of the documents he prints. We have officials there who of course want to keep their Minister happy but who are likely to have delegated tasks that include carrying out functions that the Minister would like to see in the standards and accreditations. That statutory independence is not as easy to guarantee when you have the employees in a ministry as a subset of the ministry carrying out these tasks rather than a truly independent industry-led body.So I think that this is a legitimate concern to raise and it is one that was raised again and again and again by people in the industry those people who have been involved in the standards and accreditation - setting process up until now. Members opposite may say that they know better—that they know better—than those who were involved in standards and accreditation - setting up until now. Some of those who came to speak to us had been involved in the industry and had served it over decades. But I would say to members opposite that if they think that they know better and do not even have to take those considerations into account then they are showing just how out of touch they have become on that side of the Chamber. That is what we see here.Once again also we see here something that was designed as a cost-cutting measure as well without an eye to the bigger picture without saying: “How does this reflect upon us in the international setting? How does this forward our international interests? How does this grow our exports?”. We know that the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment is not meeting the Government’s target of 40 percent of our GDP as exports. In fact under Minister Joyce it started around 32 or 33 percent; it is now down around 27 percent and it is projected to drop further. I would suggest it is not the ministry that is at fault; it is the micro-managing Minister who has this programme going on then wants to select the pamphlet colour then wants to turn the document round then wants to reword his own text. My heart goes out to the officials who have to work with that Minister who is proving to be ineffective but is also chasing things down the wrong track. Here we have an example where we have had plenty of advice from the public plenty of advice from experts that we should do things a certain way but the Government has blocked its ears and said: “We know better we are going to do it our way and bother the public and those pesky people who work in the industry.”So my submission is that what we have here is the answer to a problem that does not really exist. That problem is around funding; it was not with the structure. That is what we heard from submitters and in fact we had additional risks within the new structure. One of the points I have not raised yet is that there is no worker or consumer representation in the new structure—again something raised repeatedly by submitters and given no convincing response from officials. Again my heart went out to the officials because one could see they had their riding instructions. They were given a clear picture of how things should be and it was very difficult to come up with legitimate explanations as to why it should be that way.So this is a bill that we will oppose. We do value input from the industry. We value having New Zealand on the international stage setting those standards helping to shape the future of the world markets—those markets that we want to be competitive in. Goodness knows that under this Government exports are plummeting as a proportion of GDP. We need it to be going in the opposite direction and we believe we need to actually get alongside industry instead of always knowing better than industry. I do not know why members on that side of the Chamberhate business but they seem to persist with telling business that it is wrong.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): An extraordinary contribution from the previous member there Dr David Clark. It has been an interesting debate.I think it might be helpful just to go back and just outline the rationale for the changes proposed by this legislation. If we go back to 2012 the standards and conformance infrastructure review identified that the Standards Council as it was was not financially sustainable over the medium to longer term that the development of standards was not as responsive as it could have been to the needs of firms regulators and consumers and that there was much potential to strengthen the contribution of standards to the Government’s desired outcome in the areas particularly around innovation productivity international trade and safety. So officials considered and the Government was persuaded that three underlining problems were constraining the existing model.They were first tensions existing between the Standards Council’s statutory function of developing standards and promoting standards and standardisation throughout the economy—the difference between being a focused service-delivery organisation and an advocacy organisation. The second area was the distance from Government inherent in a Crown entity model making it difficult for the Standards Council to maintain its relevance visibility and credibility within other parts of the Government. We saw that other parts of the Government were not using the standards to quite the extent that they could have. Also finally there were difficulties of a small stand-alone organisation with a limited client base to achieve the flexibility and the scalability required in a dynamic environment. So those were the things that we were dealing with or concerned about leading into the legislation.We have heard a lot of talk from some members around whether the new proposals would be sufficiently independent and absolutely they will be independent. The New Zealand Standards Executive and the Standards Approval Board are required to act independently under this new legislation when undertaking their functions. The board will indeed make decisions based on transparent criteria outlined in the bill and the balanced standards development committees comprising experts from relevant sectors are required to be used to develop the actual standards. So you still retain the experts from industry to help develop standards but the New Zealand standards system will continue to operate in accordance with international expectations and directives from the International Organization for Standardization and from the International Electrotechnical Commission.So I do not have any doubts at all. If you look around the world there are all sorts of arrangements. Some countries have their standards systems developed within a Government agency and some are stand-alone so I think there is a lot of overblown talk about New Zealand being completely out of sync. There are lots of different ways that this is done and this way the idea is to have the New Zealand Standards Executive operating within the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment.Will the new arrangements be financially sustainable? Well absolutely. The bill strengthens the current cost-recovery model for standards by providing a fee-setting and cost-recovery framework for the standards and I think that is very important. The bill provides for the full life-cycle costing of standards including the development the approval the maintenance and the access to standards. So the New Zealand Standards Executive and those commissioning the standards can negotiate a balance between upfront development and approval costs and ongoing access and maintenance costs. So that is the core of what this bill is about—trying to establish a more financially sustainable system. On that basis I think it makes absolutely good sense. Thank you.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Well I think everything that the Minister has just said right now has actually confirmed why Labour is opposing this bill and has some fundamental problems with it. What I did not hear the Minister do tonight was address what lies behind his Supplementary Order Papers 90 and 96 on Part 1—what the rationale is for them and what he is trying to achieve. I am hoping that during the debate tonight we are actually going to hear a bit about that because when you put a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table and you expect it to be taken seriously then you should be able to get up and talk to what its purpose is and how it is going to enhance the bill—this bill that we see as being fundamentally flawed—and try to give us an explanation as to whether it improves the bill in some way.We have a fundamental problem with this bill—and can I say and I think I said it in the second reading that when we went into this process it seemed like a reasonably straightforward bill. It had gone through a process of review. We were not expecting there to be controversy around it. But every single professional body that came before us in the Commerce Committee—and I did not hear the Minister refer to any of them in his speech just now—had some serious issues with this. The serious issues were around the lack of checks and balances within the bill by removing the Standards Council and absorbing it into the great whale of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—absorbing it into a big Government department and its checks and balances—and by the potential for the watering-down of standards rather than the strengthening of standards.We could talk until the cows come home about the lowering of standards generally by this Government but what it is attempting to do here is fundamentally driven by the attempt to save money.That is one of our major problems with the bill.The Minister admitted it himself when he just got up.He read directly from the departmental report about what it said. In the regulatory impact statement at paragraph 22 under “Problem Definition”—which is what my colleague David Clark was referring to—what was the problem that this was trying to fix? One of the main issues was that “the Standards Council is not financially sustainable over the medium to longer term …”. We do not have an issue with that as being a problem but the way to fix it is to look at how to strengthen the body and ensure that there are checks and balances rather than to absorb it into a great big Government agency that has its own problems and where there are lots of questions around decisions that are being made.The standards body is a fundamentally important role that goes to our international reputation. It goes to our ability to maintain our credibility across industries like electrical engineering and building and construction. For buildings that could be affected by major events we have to be able to stand up to international scrutiny on such things and things like water safety and a whole lot of other issues.There was a troop of submitters who came before the select committee and gave very very strong credible evidence as to why they had serious issues with the direction that the Government was taking with this piece of legislation.We sat there and thought: “Well you know they’ve got a point.” Unfortunately despite our concerns and despite the concerns that were raised over and over again about this—they fell on deaf ears. That goes back to what the intention was—what was the real intention behind this legislation? Was it to try to ensure that there was a strong credible body that was independent?And you talk about independence—you know the member over there got up and talked about the fabulous independence.Well checks and balances within a Government agency when you absorb an entity like that—there are significant issues that have not been addressed.Our big concern is that we are going to see a watering-down of standards a lowering of standards.There is a question around whether or not the standards that are being developed are standards that are being developed according to an agenda rather than being driven by the entity itself. I would like to hear the Minister get up and say whether his Supplementary Order Papers on Part 1 clauses 10 and 13 are relevant to that argument whether they are going to strengthen those checks and balances and if so how.In the regulatory impact statement the concern was raised that some stakeholders had indicated that there was a risk that experts may no longer be willing to participate on standards development committees given their perception that the independence of standards would be eroded under the proposed changes.We consider that experts will continue to have incentives to participate. However the actual impact is uncertain.The regulatory impact statement was produced before we had the stream of submitters before the committee. When they did come before the committee we were still unsure as to whether those independent experts would still continue to have incentives to participate how they would feel about continuing to participate and what those impacts were going to be.If you are proposing to create a new entity within a Government agency then there has got to be a really careful process gone through in doing that and you need to take the stakeholders with you. Unfortunately in this process that has not happened and we have ended up with a situation where the Government is pushing this legislation forward. It seems to be largely driven by a desire to cut costs.We have got concerns around independence. We have got concerns around the probity and also around what kind of review mechanism there is going to be as to whether or not this new system is actually going to be working. I would not mind the Minister answering that question as well. What is built into the legislation around providing a review to show that the legislation is working as it says it is intended to rather than as is expressed by the concerns of those who submitted?So therefore Labour cannot continue to support this bill. We are at a loss as to what added value the amendments in the Supplementary Order Papers are going to add. We would like to hear from the Minister on that. We look forward to hearing his explanation.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I find it quite surprising that Mr Hudson and the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Goldsmith have stood up and talked about independence in the way they have. I want to clarify that there is a difference between independence and competence. I am not suggesting that those who are going to be appointed will not be competent but I am suggesting that they will not be independent. I point to clause 6: “The chief executive must appoint a suitable employee of the Ministry to be the NZ Standards Executive.” Immediately the New Zealand Standards Executive is beholden to the chief executive officer. He is an employee of the ministry.Under the “Functions of the NZ Standards Executive” in clause 7(3) it says: “In performing the functions … the NZ Standards Executive must … act under the direction of the Minister and the chief executive.” To me that does not suggest in any way shape or form that this is an independent position or a person who has been given a mandate to act independently. It actually states in the legislation that they must act under the direction of the Minister and the chief executive. As mentioned I am not saying that this person will be incompetent in any way shape or form—in fact they will probably be highly competent—but independent? No I do not buy that. What I would also like to talk about is the fact that this New Zealand Standards Executive may in fact delegate authority to anyone within the ministry as well. Again that just flies in the face of what constitutes independence.What I would like to talk about briefly though is the New Zealand Standards Approval Board. The board is the governance role of this whole process. Clauses 11 and 12 talk about the functions of the board but first of all I want to go to schedule 1 which talks about the appointment of board members. The Minister in the chair said that absolutely there will be experts in this field and therefore there is nothing to worry about. Well in schedule 1 clause 1(2) it says: “The Minister must only appoint a person to be a member of the Board who the Minister considers has adequate skills and experience to perform the functions of the Board …”. The English language is wide and varied and there are many words that we can use that describe a person’s competency expertise or experience and “adequate skills” is not one of those. To me the term “adequate skills” does not denote expertise in any way shape or form.The other thing I would like to say is that when we look at the nomination of board members—this is schedule 1 clause 2(1)—it says: “If the Minister considers it appropriate he or she may invite public or private nominations before appointing a member to the Board.” So again I do not know at what point in time or how we quantify what “appropriate” is but the other thing this actually says is that the Minister may in fact shoulder-tap someone and say: “Come along I want you to put forward your nomination to be a board member of the standards authority.” and that is not independent in any way shape or form. I will go back to the point: it does not mean that the person may be incompetent but if there is a private process where someone is being shoulder-tapped by the Minister I think that flies in the face of what constitutes independence. If we do not get this right in terms of independence then all it does is it devalues the work that the standards authority and the standards board undertake because if there is a perception of cronyism—and I do not use that word lightly—then even if it does not exist the ability of this board to gain the credibility needed will be greatly diminished and that will be a real shame.The other thing if I go to clause 3 in schedule 1 is: “The Minister appoints or reappoints a member of the Board and a chairperson of the Board”. So again this is not independence; this is the Minister determining who is on this board and who is chairing this board—so who has the most powerful position. Clause 4 in schedule 1 says: “The acts of a person as a member or chairperson of the Board are valid even though”—sorry this is another thing that I do not quite get and I am not too sure where this leads from. Clause 4 in schedule 1 actually says that if a person on the board has been elected or nominated through an appointment process that is defective then they are still able to sit on that board. I am not too sure how that comes about or where again is the independence let alone the validity or the mandate because the board is a very important part in terms of this whole process.The board has the ability to “approve or decline proposed New Zealand Standards:” to “adopt or decline … other standards organisations’ standards [as standards for New Zealand]” to “approve or decline modifications to New Zealand Standards:” to “advise the Minister on any matter referred to the Board …” to “advise the Minister on the currency of New Zealand Standards”—I mean you get the point. What I am actually saying here is that the board has a very important role to play and yet the legislation says that the board members have to haveonly “adequate skills”. I am hoping that what the Minister is going to do is stand up and let me know or give a feel for what the definition of “adequate skills” is.I will go back to a point that I often make in this Chamber and that is that we are held up in the global market place as a country that stands for something a country that has really robust processes around our standards around our export quality etc. etc. If we do not get this right then what we end up with is a devalued brand where people begin to question the efficacy of what we stand for. That is why this is so important. And the shame of all this is that as Ms Curran alluded to earlier as a Parliament we have the mandate and we actually have the responsibility to get this right.I know in these sorts of circumstances that Labour is always willing to work with the National Government in the select committee process to ensure that the processes and the legislation governing such an important area are done in a way that gains credibility not only for our Parliament and our country but for us on the international stage. It is such a shame that the Government did not take up the opportunity for all MPs to work together to get this right. In fact yesterday I think I spoke on a bill for environmental reporting standards where again the Labour Opposition offered a way through where the Government could work with Labour to come up with something that was a robust and responsible piece of legislation.The thing is that I actually believe that the people of New Zealand expect us to work together. We are not here to get in the way of the Government when we are putting forward this sort of legislation because we understand how important this legislation is. We are not not supporting this because we do not believe that standards are important. We think standards are incredibly important but we will never support legislation where we think it is not the right thing to do. So to the Minister in the chair I would like to say that this is a real missed opportunity.Some of the wording in this bill greatly concerns me. When Mr Hudson stood up and said: “Of course these people are going to act independently” I think that is a little naive with all due respect because if you are beholden to the Minister for your appointment or if you are beholden to the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment for your appointment then you are going to undertake the sort of direction that the Minister or the chief executive officer puts on the table and purports to represent. That is the concern I have. It could have been better it should have been better and it is a shame it is not. Thank you very much.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the chance to take a second call on Part 1 of the Standards and Accreditation Bill. I would like to take just a few moments to respond to some of the comments made by the Minister. With this bill you get the distinct feeling that the Government is taking a “burn the village to save the village” approach because the Minister said in some of his remarks that one of the concerns about why the changes in this bill needed to be made is that the Standards Council lacked visibility and that is one of the reasons why we need to make the changes and the structural changes within the council.The Government’s recipe for curing that lack of visibility within the New Zealand Standards Council is to morph it into the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—probably the biggest Government department in New Zealand. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment engulfed about five or six different ministries and currently it has a reputation for not necessarily managing its money very well. Morphing the process the body and the structure of the current New Zealand standards process into the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is the Government’s solution to that problem. Well I do not think that makes sense. I do not think that makes sense to people on this side of the Chamber and it does not make sense to a number of the very very experienced industry organisations that came and gave submissions on this piece of legislation.One of the interjections from across the Chamber was in response to our argument about the independence—or lack of it—in this bill and it was to read the legislation. And to give Mr Hudson his due there is provision—fleeting provision—in this bill to give a degree of independence to the New Zealand Standards Executive. But what happened during the select committee process was that we had a number of submitters come through—a lot of them industry people—and their voice their concerns about independence has been completely and utterly ignored. I think that is really important given that we thought that the Government members on that select committee might listen to those submitters—that they might take those messages back to the Minister and say: “Hey we may have got it wrong here Minister. A lot of the industry submitters are saying that this is not the right thing to do. We may have to rethink the structure.”So we may have expected some Supplementary Order Papers to amend the billwholeheartedly but that is not in front of us. The two Supplementary Order Papers that we have in front of us are purely technical ones changing very small technical details within the bill. So I think that it is appropriate in this Committee stage for members on this side of the Chamber to give those organisations within the industry their voice to make sure that we can flag that they have said this is the wrong thing to do. I would like to take one example and that is the New Zealand Building Industry Federation—an organisation that I hope the Government would have listened to in its concerns about this bill. In the opening comments of its submission the Building Industry Federation said: “The intent of the Government to move Standards setting from an independent body with a high level of private sector governance input to one administered by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) was not greeted with enthusiasm by many in the building industry.” If I were in the National Government and the New Zealand Building Industry Federation had said that in the opening line of its submission on this bill I would be a little bit concerned. It is not a small organisation and it covers a very important function in our country so I would be a little bit concerned by its opening remarks.Then we get to its comments around independence. Mr Hudson has said that yes the bill does cater for independence but let us look at the reality of what may be the case within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. I think that this was a very brave submission for the Building Industry Federation because it went on to say in its submission that with the New Zealand Standards Executive the: “International best practice has historically been to allocate the Standard-setting function to industry. The required technical expertise is principally found within the ranks of day to day practitioners within the sectors to be covered. Further Standard-setting should not be subject”—CHRIS BISHOP (National): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 90 and 96 in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith and the following amendment in his name to Part 1 be agreed to:in the cross-heading above clause 26 replace “legislative instruments” with “regulations”; andin schedule 2 clause 4(4) replace “this Act” with “this Schedule”.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Miscellaneous provisionsKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you for allowing me to take some calls on Part 2 of this Standards and Accreditation Bill. I would like to focus on clause 40 which is the “Disestablishment of the Standards Council”. It is only a two-line clause but the Standards Council continued under section 3 of the Standards Act 1988 is disestablished.That sets up the ability for this Government to set up a new body that is housed within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and this is the NZ Standards Executive. This is the body that will be replacing the Standards Council and it is that lack of independence because of its housing within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment that we have a problem with. Just as I was saying on Part 1 there is massive concern that we are losing the Standards Council and we are having a new entity within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the NZ Standards Executive.I just wanted to continue with some concerns from the Building Industry Federation around losing the Standards Council. In its submission again and quoting from it—and I want to say that it is a very brave submission from the Building Industry Federation—it says that this bill to the extent that it “breaks with this historic global practice the Building and Construction sector was and is concerned that the position of Executive is now to be filled by an executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Development (MBIE) appointed by the Chief Executive of that Ministry.”The Building Industry Federation in its submission to the select committee which is the public’s opportunity to come and have its say says: “The industry does not question the integrity of the Chief Executive of MBIE but is concerned that the appointment process and the subsequent administrative tenor of the appointee will be influenced significantly and dominated by public sector and government requirements at the expense of industry requirements and needs.”Why has this Government which always claims it is close to industry and in touch with industry completely and utterly ignored the many voices of industry when it came to this bill at the Commerce Committee and completely and utterly ignored their concerns around independence and around whether or not the new structure affords itself to cover costs? It has completely and utterly ignored it because it has made no amendments to this piece of legislation—or no substantive amendments to this piece of legislation—at all after it left the select committee. They have been ignored and I think that that is a mistake and a missed opportunity from this Government to make sure that this piece of legislation was as good as it could have been. It is a missed opportunity and one that the Government should have seen coming at the select committee consideration.Clause 40 again is around the disestablishment of the Standards Council. The main aim in doing this was to deal with the lack of financial viability of the New Zealand Standards Council. Again in the select committee process we heard from a number of submitters who questioned whether the new structure within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment would actually solve that problem. A number of my colleagues have raised this issue. I think Dr David Clark did and my colleague Stuart Nash certainly did.Also this issue was raised by Diane Baguley and I have quoted her submission extensively through this debate. She is someone with around 20 years’ experience in this area and she has grave concerns not just about the financial sustainability of the standards process but also concerns around the independence which we share. Ms Baguley sent her submission to the Commerce Committee on 1 January; so concerned was she about this piece of legislation that on New Year’s Day she thought she would send her submission in. She said in her submission:“There is no guarantee that the new structure will in the long run save public money rather than merely shift it from one part of the budget to another. The effect on overall expenditure will be difficult to determine given that there will be practical limitations to the specificity of financial reporting within MBIE.”There is another clear reason there why this Government should have taken heed of a number of the recommendations from the submitters at the select committee. Clause 40 does provide for disestablishing the New Zealand Standards Council. A number of submitters said we should not have been doing this. The arrogance of the Government to not see that and to push on through—Chris Bishop: Ha!KRIS FAAFOI: Mr Bishop can laugh but his members sat around that table and listened to the industry submitters come along and for them it was an important chance to have their say. It is an important part of the democratic process—scrutiny of legislation by the people who are going to be most affected—but this Government did nothing. It pushed on and did not listen to people with decades more experience of this sector than the people sitting around that select committee table. I am glad to say that we on this side of the Chamber did listen to those concerns. We hoped that the Government was going to make changes through a Supplementary Order Paper that the Government may have brought through but to this date we have seen nothing and to this date we will probably continue to vote against this piece of legislation.This is a missed opportunity for this Government. I think that earlier on the Minister in the chair Paul Goldsmith said that the Standards Council which is being disestablished under clause 40 was not visible at all and that was one the problems that the Government was trying to solve. As I said in relation to Part 1 the solution that the Government had to that problem was a novel one. It was not to continue to keep it independent. It was not to give it more funding to ensure that it was financially sustainable. It was to morph it into a department that is probably the biggest department in the country—the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. It has taken in five or six other Government departments: immigration labour building housing and economic development. The problem was visibility so this Government said: “Well if it’s not visible let’s put it in MBIE where it will be even more invisible.” I do not think that those organisations that came to submit and were concerned about the disestablishment of the Standards Council will be impressed. They were not impressed certainly at the select committee hearing. I think they left hopeful that the Government would listen but it did not. There is nothing in this piece of legislation that in any way goes to meet the concerns that they had at the select committee and those have been well traversed.This is a Government that is actually in most areas trying to push responsibility away whether it be social bonds or whether it be social housing. Government members are trying to say that less Government is better. But in this instance they are saying: “That’s an independent body. Let’s morph it into the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.” That does not make sense to us. It means that because we are trying to solve one problem around costs we are creating another fundamental problem around independence and the industry wants independence to make sure that we have credibility on the international stage when it comes to our standards setting.We have got huge credibility there—we have—and we had submissions to the select committee and they did have concerns. I will just quote one more of those. It is from Diane Baguley again. She said: “I oppose the disestablishment of the Standards Council … I do not consider that the provisions set out for the establishment of the standards functions within MBIE can adequately control the risks associated with the new structure.”This is a case where this Government has burned the village to save the village. We are not convinced it is going to solve the issue around costs and we certainly know that it has created another issue around independence one that is fundamental and one that puts our reputation in this area seriously at risk.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I want to make my first contribution focused on Part 2 clause 41: “Transitional provisions” which are actually surprisingly interesting. I challenge members opposite to have a look through these transitional provisions because there is some cracker stuff in here. There is some stuff that tells us a bit about what the Government is on about here and it is buried in the related schedules which are referred to in this part of the bill.Clause 41(1) refers to schedule 2: the transitional provisions relating to the transfer of the functions work and employees of the Standards Council. One of the things that is immediately obvious in there is that the assets records liabilities and debts of the existing Standards Council will transfer and become vested in the ministry. With that comes both opportunity and risk of course. I am not familiar with the detail that is recorded in those records and I do not know whether they will capture all of the intellectual property that goes with the existing members of that council or a portion thereof and exactly what grace there will be in the handover of that given the fact that the members on that council will be feeling a little like they have not been listened to and like their contribution has not been valued for what it was and is currently. The opportunity lies in there though for the Government to learn something from it.I have already expressed concerns around international connectedness representation in international fora and having New Zealand represented at the table when standards are set to ensure that New Zealand industry interests are protected as well as New Zealand interests more generally and the relationships that are built around that. I want to skip from there to clause 4 of schedule 2 which talks about determining whether each subcommittee’s work will continue or not. This is a crunch issue and it will be in these decisions that we see where the Government’s agenda lies—which things it wants to flick on which things it wants to continue with and where its funding priorities lie. I suspect strongly that we will see that it will focus on those industries that are already wealthy and can afford to fund the development of standards readily and focus less on those industries that are nascent that are full of entrepreneurs full of people who wish to make a mark on the world stage the young and growing enterprises that we would want to encourage to ensure an increasing diversity in our economy.The diversification issue is one that comes up again and again around this Parliament. We know that we are too reliant for our wealth on the primary sector. We know that we are incredibly grateful for the efforts of the primary sector but this Government is content to blame them when it goes wrong and it seems to have no strategy for diversifying the economy. Here we will see in this particular handover in these transitional arrangements just where its priorities lie. We will see whether the Government chooses to continue on with the work that would diversify our economy or whether it focuses instead on those industries that are already entrenched. So this is where the rubber hits the road—Part 2 is an incredibly important part of the bill but in this part of my contribution I am focusing just on that clause because there are other clauses I wish to speak to.The next thing that leaps out at members here and will outrage some of course is clause 5(3) of schedule 2 and I will read it out for members who will not have read it before I am sure: “This clause overrides Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000.” It is a very short clause and—Hon Ruth Dyson: Say that again.Dr DAVID CLARK: It says: “This Act overrides Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000.” This is the protection for vulnerable workers that is in the legislation. The Government has in a schedule at the back of this very thick bill shoved in a clause that overrides the protections for vulnerable workers. It is right here. Why? Why in this bill of all places? It just goes to show that the real agenda of the Government is tucked away here and I would be very interested to hear from the Minister just why this clause is so important. How many people who work at the Standards Council are vulnerable workers? There are probably one or two cleaners maybe and some part-time workers.I am not sure but the Minister has it in for them. He has put in a clause specifically to ensure that they are not protected in this transition. And it goes on in clause 6 where it talks about terms of employment of transferred employees being treated as continuous employment. It states: “The employment of a transferred employee by the Ministry is to be treated as continuous employment for the purposes of any enactment.” So if they are transferring people they do not want to be giving any special privileges. They do not want to be making any redundancy payments first or carrying over or anything. It is all in the interests of the ministry and in the interests of this particular Minister I would suggest. It is an outrage that that can be put in the schedules at the back hidden away to be discovered only when the fine print is read on this bill.These transitional arrangements tell us a lot about the Government. They will be where the rubber hits the road as I have said in this bill. There are also clauses in here about the Government Superannuation Fund and what people are entitled to. It specifies what they are not entitled to quite precisely because the Government does not want people to be better off for this shift. This is a Government that is so mean that in the subclauses of the bill it overrides the vulnerable worker protection that we have ensconced in our legislation in this Parliament. I consider that to be an outrage and it shows just how out of touch this Government has become if it thinks it can get away with hiding these things away in the fine print and not have it noticed in the debate.This is certainly something that was not brought up at the select committee. I think there would have been something in our minority report had we spotted that particular schedule at the time. I do not think we spent much time on the schedules at the back of the bill. But it is something that has leapt out at me right now in this debate. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister would consider making an amendment to thatat the last minute because it is certainly within his powers to do that.But as I said at the outset one of the other tests will be when we see what the ministry transfers what work it carries on with and what work it does not carry on with. These are the things that will matter for the industries that are seeking the support of standards that are in their interests as they develop products and want to put them out on the international market. Can the New Zealand products and the New Zealand manufacturers be guaranteed that the international standards will be easy for them to reach in terms of the manufacturing techniques and varieties available here or will they be standards that play to the interests of whoever is in the room with an excluded New Zealand component because it is just not a priority for this Government? The funding as I said at the outset has not been a priority. It will come down to this “where rubber hits road” section and we will see that it is also not a priority and that is signalled clearly by the fact that the vulnerable worker clause overrides existing legislation here in the schedule at the back of the bill.Of course Mr Faafoi has already noted the overriding of the concerns of industry members in the select committee—I suspect that those same concerns will be thrust aside in the transitional arrangements as the Government tries to give its handover and says that this is the valuable work of the Standards Council—these are the international fora that are the most important that we attend and this is where we have got the most traction and where we have the relationships that can ensure New Zealand’s interests are protected. On the track record of what we have seen so far this Government has blinkers on.The Minister is dead set on doing things a certain way of drawing more into his mega - multi-enterprise the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment monolith with the big sign outside. It is a power grab and there can be no mistake about that. This is an attempt to bring more under his control to direct officials to skew it towards the interests that he is interested in and as we see these transitional arrangements I am sure we will see more of the same.So my submission to this Committee is that it would be very good if the Minister would explain why the clause in the legislation that protects vulnerable workers needs to be overridden in this schedule. Whom in particular is he trying to target here and why and also why is it being so specific around any payments that are carried over and any arrangements around employment? It feels a little bit like the Government is being mean-spirited in targeting a small group of individuals who made a genuine and lasting contribution to New Zealand’s economic development and there is a deep irony in that coming from a Government that is driving down exports as a percentage of our GDP. That is unfortunately making life hard for small businesses with fewer small businesses being created under this Government than the previous Government. That is the irony I guess in this bill: we have a Government obsessed with controlling the transitional provisions to ensure that no one—no one—is looked after in the transition. Thank you.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to take only a very brief call on the Standards and Accreditation Bill because I basically have a few questions for the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Goldsmith and I am sure that they are ones that he will be able to deal with relatively quickly.Sitting here in the Chamber tonight I picked up a copy of the bill and I read Part 2 clause 39 which is the regulation-making powers that the bill provides. There are not many people in the House who get excited about regulation-making powers in bills but I am one of them—I am one of them. As a previous member of the Regulations Review Committee I am one of the people who find regulation-making powers quite interesting. Clause 39 states: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council make regulations providing for any matter that is contemplated by this Act as necessary—(a) for giving it full effect; or (b) for its administration.” Those are incredibly wide-ranging regulation-making powers and although I have looked at a number of regulation-making powers in bills I do not think that I have seen ones that are quite so broad.So my question for the Minister in the chair really is what the justification is for there being such a wide regulation-making power in this legislation. We have established over a long period of time the primacy—the sovereignty—of Parliament when it comes to establishing the laws of the land. The Regulations Review Committee has typically taken a very dim view of legislation that creates uncertainty by giving overwhelming regulation-making power to the executive which this very very broad clause seems on the face of it to do. The current approach to regulation making tightened up significantly after the Muldoon Government because back then Rob Muldoon would frequently pass laws through the House that basically gave him regulation-making power to effectively make new laws without reference back to the Parliament.Chris Bishop: The Economic Stabilisation Act.CHRIS HIPKINS: Chris Bishop is very excited about that. He works for Steven Joyce—or he used to work for Steven Joyce. I think that is a regulation-making power they would have loved to have and he would have loved to have when Chris Bishop was working for him.The reality is we frown upon those and we frown upon those because we have an established principle that it is the Parliament that should be making laws not the executive. While the executive proposes laws to the legislature it is not solely responsible for their passage. The House has that prerogative. We put them through a select committee process and we make sure that they are robustly tested and yet this clause here—clause 39—seems to give the executive the power to make any nature of regulations under this bill. That does seem incredibly broad.So I guess the question that I have for the Minister in the chair is: why such a broad regulation-making power? Have I misinterpreted that? But I do not think I have because I have looked at many regulation-making powers provided for in bills and in legislation and I have never yet seen one that is as broad as this one. So I think it is important that where the House is giving such wide regulation-making powers to the executive that is tested.I note the Regulations Review Committee has provided feedback on another part of the bill which is clause 2 the commencement clause. I am sure the debate on that will tease out the concerns of the Regulations Review Committee on that but I notice that it has not provided feedback on that particular clause. It may well be that there is a good explanation for why such a broad power is being allowed but I would very much like to hear it. I hope that the Minister in the chair will give the Committee the benefit of that argument and that information before we vote on Part 2 clause 39. Thank you.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): May I begin my contribution by picking up where our chief whip has left off? As chair of the Regulations Review Committee I too would seek an explanation from the Minister about why the Government has introduced a part as sweeping as clause 39.Let me read it again: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council”—which of course is dictated by Cabinet—“make regulations providing for any matter that is contemplated by this Act as necessary—(a) for giving it full effect; or (b) for its administration.” So the regulation-making power is very very broad. It allows essentially the Governor-General on advice from Cabinet to make regulations. That means basically that the Minister is ordering up regulations as the Chair knows on any matter that the Minister sees fit.I turn then to a partner provision under clause 7 of schedule 1 of the bill entitled “Removal of Board members” which provides that “The Minister may at any time remove a member of the Board from office.” by written notice and publishing in the Gazette. Once again it is an almost unfettered power by the Minister to remove any member of the independent standards board. How very interesting.Then I turn to the regulatory impact statement prepared by the Government—by Treasury and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—and what I was curious about as a non-member of the Commerce Committee that considered the bill was the fact that the Labour Party had supported the bill’s referral to the select committee but on the weight of submissions received by the select committee we are changing our vote and are now opposing the bill. This I say for the benefit of people listening is quite unusual. Sometimes an Opposition will oppose a bill’s referral to a select committee and then be reassured on the points that are of concern and vote for a bill thereafter. It is more unusual for us to vote against a bill on the weight of submissions having got it to a select committee in the first place.So what is it that is the core problem with this? Well let us start with what the problem is that the legislative process is designed to solve because this reform programme has been under way since the current Government canned the previous Government’s 2008 reforms in 2012. That is a 3-year ride to get to the point where we are today. So the problem definition is at No. 1 that the current arrangements of an independent statutory board are too unwieldy and too expensive and one reading between the lines might add the phrase “too independent”.A range of options was considered for different aspects of this but the key conclusion is in paragraph 30 on page 6 of the regulatory impact statement which says: “One of the key issues identified was the sustainability”—they mean the financial stability—“of [Standards New Zealand]. MBIE”—that is the Government Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment reporting to Minister Joyce—“have considered the current funding model and consider that it remains appropriate”—here is the punch line—“where regulators and industry … are able to exercise choices about the use of Standards and … their development …”.So the Government’s officials and the businesses that are being regulated are able to exercise choices about what standards are developed and how. That way they can cut out the ones they do not want and get only the ones they do want and that will be cheaper because the body will be doing less. The way to ensure that is to insource Standards New Zealand executive and board within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment reporting to the Minister—the same Minister who can write any regulation he or she wants and sack any board member he or she wants under this bill. It is insourced within a Government ministry. Any pretence of independence upon which New Zealand’s international reputation for effectiveness in this area was built has gone out the window. Not surprisingly that is exactly what submitters have told the select committee.National has chosen to go for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment embedded option for regulation of standards against the run of the public comments supporting full operational independence. I will boil it down again. Under the guise of addressing issues of financial sustainability—i.e. can we pay for the thing on its current budget—the Government has sneaked through a Trojan horse which is to remove the statutory independence of the chief executive and the board to bring them under a Minister within a Government department where the Minister can write any regulation he or she chooses and can sack any board member upon notice. There is a line official within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment who has day-to-day operational responsibility for the development of standards.Well that has got to be a backwards step and that is exactly what the weight of submissions has said. They go on and on and on—the negative submissions criticising the Government for this Trojan horse move. They warn us that not only will it trash New Zealand’s international reputation in the standards area but it could lead to other countries perhaps developing countries with less robust systems of governance adopting the New Zealand model to their detriment—adopting the New Zealand model to their detriment. These are very disheartening words to hear. Why would the Minister why would the Government want to have more control direct control over standards? Well it is lovely to see the Minister entering the Chamber at this moment and I hope that he will take a call and address himself to that matter.Here is what the New Zealand Building Industry Federation—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Come to Part 2.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —said in direct relation Mr Chairperson to Part 2. It said: “Standard-setting should not be subject to direct political influence by the government of the day.” Part 2 contains the schedules which contain the ministerial regulation-making power and the “fire’em sack’em or back’em” power. A consumer representative on a wide variety of standards committees Patricia Cunniffe—no relation—said that she was completely unconvinced that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment embedded model was either viable or well functioning.And there were many many many more submissions in a similar vein. Diane Baguley a member of the joint Australia-New Zealand committee since 1995 one of the international leaders in this area criticised it for its lack of independence and robustness. Here is a Government that is making a name for the decline of standards: the decline of broadcasting standards the decline of expenditure efficiency standards the decline of swamp kauri standards—the decline of standards all around the country. Maybe there is no surprise that it would want to have a tamer more compliant more malleable more directable more sackable standards body than currently exists.Under the guise of financial stability here is a Trojan horse by which this Government—which is always going for the short-term high-control solution—is ebbing away our independent institutions; ebbing away corroding away our independent institutions. This is another step along a road vested in Part 2 of this bill which is leading to ultimately more risk more fragility and down the track greater costs because if we get standards wrong we increase our insurance premiums we increase health and safety problems and we may have inter-operability problems that become more pressing in an interconnected world.I see the Minister of Health opposite. The Minister well knows that New Zealand’s 22 district health boards find it difficult to talk to each other online because they do not have and have not had a common set of inter-operability standards. That is a living glowing example of the importance of standards. If we want to shift patient data from an operating theatre in Northland to the family GP in Southland oftentimes it is very difficult to do it because the standards are not as robust as they should be. If we had had more standards of mining regulation we might not have had Pike River. So there are many practical examples about why standards matter.The gist here in conclusion—I see you are leaning forward for your time button Mr Chair—is this. It is a matter of regret that we are insourcing the standards independence within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. That is a backwards step.CHRIS BISHOP (National): I move That the question be now put.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):Well taking up from where my colleague David Clark left off around the impact of the Standards and Accreditation Bill on vulnerable workers and Part 2 with the clause that he referred to earlier I say that this bill will also affect consumers and vulnerable consumers.I want to specifically refer to a submission from the Barrier Free New Zealand Trust which is committed to ensuring that the built environment is accessible to everyone including people with disabilities.Its submission was quite an important submission because what it brought home was why it is so important to have good standards.It talked about consumer confidence and I want to broaden that out into further consumer confidence but for this group—it believes that independence and balance in standards committees is absolutely critical and that there has to be consumer confidence.One of the things about this bill that really worries us on this side of the Chamber is that what this bill is doing is moving away from a system where consumers can feel confident.I think we have raised enough issues tonight and through other speeches about other parts of this bill to actually really red flag what is actually being achieved through this bill.The entity is being taken away from being an independent Crown entity. It is being weakened watered down and absorbed into a major Government department where there is an appearance of independence but where the extraordinary checks and balances that were in the original entity are not replicated in the new entity.The Barrier Free New Zealand Trust says: “Our concern is that should the Standards development and approval process be manipulated in anyway by virtue of its operational requirements sitting within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment then this could be lost.” I think its submission is actually quite important. I think that if you have got a consumer group that is vulnerable like this it should be significantly listened to.I want to also refer to another submission which was from the Fire Protection Association. This is a completely different organisation. But what it said was: “We are concerned with the very poor quality in thinking and analysis and the lack of even the most rudimentary data evident … MBIE’s apparent (to our mind) obfuscation of its thinly disguised attempt to (to use its own words) ‘capture’ the Standards system—either for its own ends or in response to a very influential lobby …”. It went on to elaborate on those concerns. When you have got that kind of a body saying those kinds of things then there should be major red flags being raised. In Part 2 with the disestablishment of the Standards Council which is going to be replaced with the New Zealand Standards Approval Board—we do not believe that the test has been met for the independence and the probity of the new organisation that will actually ensure that it will provide consumer confidence that will provide industry confidence and that will alleviate the concerns that have been raised.Another submission—I also refer to Patricia Cunniffe’s submission where she talked about consumer confidence and consumer concerns in standardisation. She used some illustrations to raise the issue of how important it is to continue to develop certain standards. Another one of the concerns that was raised was around whether there will be a continuation of the standards being developed that need to be developed to provide that consumer confidence and that industry confidence and also to maintain our international reputation. She uses the example of the standard currently in use for medical alert systems which is a 20-year-old Australian one and says that there is no willingness by any Government department to update this standard as it does not fall neatly into any particular department’s bailiwick. I ask the Minister in the chair Paul Goldsmith tonight: will standards like this be updated under the new regime?The second example is from technologies being developed in isolation with insufficient regard to their interaction. She uses the example that it is known that implanted defibrillators are adversely affected by scanning equipment. Scanning equipment is used not only in airports; it is commonplace in supermarkets for example. The interaction between the two is dealt with by warnings rather than by standardisation. So will we have work being done on those things where new technologies are having impacts on people’s health and where standards need to be developed?The third case was in the building sector where the building code has been developed with insufficient regard for those most at risk in that there are incompatibilities between the code and NZS 4121 the standard relating to requirements for people with disabilities—going back to that issue again.The Malatest report from June 2014 which was Access to Buildings for People with Disabilities considers that “Lack of leadership and coordination has contributed to missed opportunities duplication of efforts and inefficiencies and gaps in knowledge.” I ask the Minister in the chair what he has to say about that. What confidence can he stand up and give this Committee that consumers and those sorts of standards will be looked at under this new regime?Just to conclude two devastating events form the backdrop to this bill and also to the health and safety reforms before Parliament: the Pike River mine explosion in 2010 which killed 29 miners; and the collapse of the CTV Building in February 2011 which killed 115 people.I would just like to remind everybody that Standards New Zealand was established after a similarly shocking tragedy which was the 1931 Hawke’s Bay earthquake which had a death toll of 251 people.Following that event Standards New Zealand was tasked to ensure that future such events did not result in the same loss of life. Well I put it to you Mr Chair and to the Minister in the chair that this bill is not going to maintain that standard and maintain that level of scrutiny of independence and of surety for New Zealand consumers and for industry bodies that are trying to maintain their own reputations and build economic credibility and economic development.Also our international reputation will be affected will be watered down by the impact of this bill.Therefore wecannot support it.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I move That the question be now put.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just looking around a process issue. There was a late amendment tabled in my name because of something that was discovered during the debate. I am seeking the call to see whether we could take an opportunity to highlight that.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I am sorry; I have put the question.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 90 in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 46New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Amendment agreed to.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just clarifying whether there is going to be a vote on the amendment put in by myself.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): That comes in schedule 2 which is yet to be put.KRIS FAAFOI: Apologies Mr Chair.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith and the following amendment in his name to schedule 2 be agreed to:replace “this Act” with “this Schedule”.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Kris Faafoi to schedule 2 be agreed to:omit clause 5(3).A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 3The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith to schedule 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.Schedule 4A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 4 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Schedule 4 agreed to.Schedule 5A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 5 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Schedule 5 agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the opportunity to have a discussion around clauses 1 and 2 the title and commencement clauses to the Standards and Accreditation Bill. This is an opportunity when we can seek alternative titles to the bill that is being debated. A very simple change to the bill as it is is that we just change it to the “Lower Standards and Accreditation Bill” because that is exactly what this bill does. It does lower the standards and accreditation of New Zealand’s processes around this not just in the eyes of the people who practise here in New Zealand but also in the eyes of the international community which should be of major concern to this Government but it does not seem to hear about that.A number of people and organisations came to the Commerce Committee and made that very point: that if we change the structure of our standards and accreditation process New Zealand would be looked at in a much dimmer light in terms of our international reputation around standards and accreditation. You would have thought that the Government would take that on board because it was not just one or two of the around a dozen and a half submissions that came to us. It was a very strong vein of opposition and concern around our international reputation.You would think that the members on that committee would have taken that feedback to the Minister and said: “Minister we think we’ve got a problem here. We have got all these people with much more experience than us in the industry who actually do this day in day out and they say it is a bad idea. Do you think we should do something about it?”. But no they did not do that. They completely and utterly ignored the submissions from those submitters like the Building Industry Federation which I do not think we should ignore to be frank and many other submitters who were mainly from around the construction industry who have serious concerns around what the Government is doing. Their submissions were that if we do this things will get worse.My alternative title for the bill is that it should be the “Lower Standards and Accreditation Bill”. These are not just my words. I am not being in opposition just for opposition’s sake which you think the Government will have a shot at us about—“Why are you guys being so negative? You always oppose everything.” Well that is not the case in this case. There were many submitters who came to us who made the point that I have been talking about.One of them and I want to quote from her submission was Diane Baguley who has been a member of the joint New Zealand - Australia committee around standards since 1995. It is a long time 20 years. Twenty years is a long time to be an expert in something. So when Diane Baguley turned up we were paying attention but it seems that the members on the opposite side of the House on our select committee did not really care about Diane’s 20 years of experience and expertise around standards because she did have concerns around lowering standards through this bill. To quote Diane Baguley—who I think is a submitter who spent her New Year’s Day putting her submission together which is I think a commitment to the cause—she said: “I do not consider that the provisions set out for the establishment of the standards function within MBIE”—which is the loss of independencethat we are talking about—“can adequately control the risks associated with the new structure whether to the management of standards development or the reputation of New Zealand in the international standards community.”When someone with 20 years’ more experience than me in the standards sector says that I think we should listen to it. We think that the Government should have listened to it and maybe the Minister in the chair would like to take a call as to why he did not listen to it and why his party did not listen to it therefore lowering the standards of the standards and accreditation process here in New Zealand.Diane did not stop there. She went on to say more about this piece of legislation. She said: “The model proposed in the Bill if realised might even be used as an example by countries without robust government systems with undesirable results. New Zealand is well respected”—she may use that in the pasttense now—“in the international standards community” and an argument can be made that other countries may say “Well if New Zealand does it this waywhy don’t we do it this way” and that could be influential. Diane Baguley is directly saying that because we do this and we have got a good reputation other countries that do not have such a good reputation may say: “Well you know look at New Zealand. They have been the shining light”—have; past tense—“so why don’t we do what they do? If they don’t think independence is important any more then we’ll do it too.” We do not think that is the kind of example that New Zealand should be setting. We want to make sure that our systems are robust and that they continue to be looked upon by the international community as some of the best if not the best.But we think the changes within this bill lower the standards which is why I offered up a cheeky—well not too cheeky—alternative title to the bill. An alternative title—and a good alternative title that you should take because I think it more accurately describes the bill as it stands at the moment. It was not just Diane Baguley; there were other submitters who had concerns about the lowering of standards and also about the amount of political influence that could now come in to the setting of standards. It was the Building Industry Federation which I quoted extensively earlier in the Committee stage that said quite simply in one sentence: “ … Standard-setting should not be subject to direct political influence by the government of the day.” We could not agree more with that and why the Government ignored that I do not know. Maybe the Minister in the chair who I think has taken the time to answer some of the questions that we have posed might take a call in this late stage of the Committee of the whole House to answer some of the questions that we have posed here.It is lowering standards because the Minister in that contribution that I mentionedearlier said that one of the problems he is trying to solve is a lack of visibility for the New Zealand Standards Council which for a short period of time will continue to be the body that looks after standards in New Zealand. His novel approach to curing the visibility problem that he pointed out was to put the new body within the uber-ministry run by Steven Joyce—the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. From my reckoning taking a small independent body that lacks visibility and putting it in a ministry that has eaten six other ministries that has thousands of employees and that cannot seem to spend money wisely is not the right solution to that problem. If you want something to be more visible you do not put on camouflage. So I think the Minister may want to revisit his thinking behind that because to me that does not make sense. If you want something to be more visible—as you know Mr Chairperson health and safety is very important; it is something that we all think is important—you put something on that is more high-vis so you can stand out. But in this case the solution to a visibility problem is to put camouflage on the new body and to put it within a ministry that has as I say taken on so much responsibility that it cannot control itself.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Title and commencement.KRIS FAAFOI: So the title of this piece of legislation should be the “Lower Standards and Accreditation Bill”. This Government has lowered standards because it has not taken on a lot of the recommendations that have come through the select committee process: to keep independence to make sure that there is a viable financial model and to make sure that we do address the issue of whether we can properly cost and fund the standards process. This is another example of the Government trying to solve a problem and where it has not solved the problem that it is trying to solve it has actually created others.So we will watch very closely whether our predictions of our international reputation being even more dimly viewed by the international community will come to fruition. We believe they will and I would like to say to the Government: you were warned—by about 19 submitters who all said the same thing—that this lack of independence will lead to our international reputation being affected. In the end we will have lower standards in our standards and accreditation processes. It is a missed opportunity for the Government to have done something properly and it is a really wasted opportunity. Thank you very much.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): That act from Mr Faafoi is going to be a hard one to follow with his excellent suggestions for alternative titles. I however wish to attempt a few of my own and one of them is to draw attention to the fact that we discovered in the fine print of schedule 2—in a Supplementary Order Paper that we did not really have an opportunity to discuss at length because of other pressures—a concern that vulnerable workers’ rights are removed in this bill. The ability to contest the nature of employment with the transitional arrangements is not protected in the bill. It is explicitly ruled out in that schedule so we may actually say that this is the “Standards and Accreditation (And By the Way Removal of Vulnerable Workers’ Rights) Bill”. The slipping in of that particular little line there is rather mean-spirited I think. Some of my colleagues have agreed with me and I suspect many people watching at home will agree that targeting those who formerly worked for the accreditation committee that will now transfer to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and ruling some of them out from taking any action based on what they perceive to be an injustice in the transfer is a pretty mean-spirited step. So we may give it that alternative title just to make people aware that that is part of the Government’s agenda here.Part of the Government’s agenda beyond this bill I would suggest is to remove the protection for vulnerable workers. It really is a shame and there is no need for it I would suggest in this bill. Some of the other provisions in it are designed in part to cover that off but just to make it perfectly clear the Government put a special clause in there to say that Part 6A of the relevant employment legislation does not apply—i.e. vulnerable workers cannot go back to that protection if they feel hard done by in this transition. So we could make that point by putting that in brackets in the title of the bill.To raise another thing that has been brought up in the debate the “Detraction from Our International Reputation and Influence Bill” may be another title that we could adopt given that we have seen in the bill that the change in structure will interrupt the existing successful arrangements we have whereby members of the existing committee participate in international fora. We have seen in the submissions process in the select committee that that will be less highly prioritised. So we may choose a title for the bill that reflects that change in emphasis that focus on collecting of fees for the setting of standards and accreditation from successful existing industries and the likely lower priority given to new and emerging industries as this Government seeks to protect entrenched interests over those that are coming through—those that would diversify the economy; those that may actually grow the economy in a way that protects it and ensures that our future prosperity is protected.I would be interested in the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Goldsmith taking a call on this because he has not addressed this problem in the debate in my view and he could probably quite well address it in this particular title and commencement debate which lends itself to a quite wide-ranging debate within the confines of the nature of describing a bill but none the less wide enough that the Minister in the chair could give I am sure an illuminating response if he had one at his disposal. But we shall see. That test will remain.We could also call it the “Standards and Accreditation (And By the Way ‘Henry VIII’ Clauses Slipped In As Well) Bill” because that is another point that has been well made in the debate—that there are clauses that are very wide ranging in this bill that appear at the end that give the Minister the ability to hire and fire and that allow the Minister to make some quite significant changes. They were referred to by my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe in his contribution to the debate. So we have seen that in this legislation there are many things that reflect the Government’s wider agenda and that sense of being a little bit arrogant a little bit out of touch. It thinks it can pop things in here that wipe out protection for vulnerable workers. It thinks it can slip things in here that give the Minister or others rights to do away with the usual parliamentary process with the “Henry VIII” clauses when it wishes. Also we have seen here that arrogance in the ignoring of the advice to select committees from industry representatives—that sense of being out of touch with where industry is today.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I would like to take a call on the title and commencement clauses and in the prevailing theme of my colleagues suggest a new title for this bill the Standards and Accreditation Bill 2014 as being the “Watering Down Consumer Confidence Standards Bill”. I just I suppose reiterate the fact that there are numerous issues with this bill that have watered down and lowered down the standard of what a good standards system should be. Consumer confidence is a really important measure of that.Unfortunately we have heard from the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs only once during this debate. He basically read out tracts from the ministerial report to justify the rationale for the bill before us tonight. He has given us no indication of what the purpose of his amendments are and has essentially given no response to any of the issues that have been raised. So I suppose what that tells you is that another alternative name is the “Usual Arrogance and Out of Touch Nature of the Government when Developing a Standards and Accreditation Bill”—Kris Faafoi: Usual—usual.CLARE CURRAN: Usual—arrogant and out of touch as usual and that is the syndrome to which we are all becoming accustomed. The issues that lie behind our criticism of this bill go to the issues that lie behind so many things that this Government is doing. It is removing independence. There are suggestions of conflicts of interest there are impacts on our international reputation there are impacts on consumer experience and consumer confidence and this is just one of numerous—it is a trend in Government legislation that is coming before this House. If anyone is listening at home tonight at 9.30 p.m. or watching this on the TV then I imagine they will be shrugging their shoulders and saying “Well what’s new?”. We think the bill is deeply problematic and that it is going to need a review by this side of the Chamber when we become the Government. We are going to have to come back to the drawing board on this and we are you know signalling that. The work that was done by officials on this—there has been a lot of work done on this bill and thank you to the officials. However we are not convinced and we are not convinced because of the very very strong weight of concern that has come from reputable industry bodies and people with long history and credibility in this area.We know that the standards framework needed a review. Everything needs a review and it is important that we do that and so that was undertaken. We know that there were financial unsustainability issues but is that a reason to water down and suck an independent entity into a great big amorphous beast that is called the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment? It has its own issues in terms of how it operates and the consumer confidence of people particularly with regard to ensuring that there is good management of processes around health and safety. And here we are—we have created another entity within that. So to consumers listening tonight people out there: be a bit afraid about where our standards are going and how well they are going to stand up internationally. We do not believe that it is independent. We believe that because it is inside—Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): The majority of the contributions on the title and commencement clauses so far have focused on the title and I want to applaud my colleagues for their creativity in producing titles that describe the debates that we have had here in the Chamber. There have been some lively debates and there have been some genuine concerns raised and some frustration from this side of the Chamber that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has not made more contributions to perhaps justify the direction that has been taken in putting this legislation inside the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment when the independence in the past has served us so well.I wish to focus my contribution on the clause that relates to the commencement of the bill and suggest an alternative date for commencement and suggest that new subclause (2) of clause 2 be amended so that the effect of it is that the bill comes into effect in April 2018. That would allow of course for a more sensible decision-making process by a more sensible Government. I am hopeful that in 2018 we will have a more sensible Government that will actually listen to the submitters on select committees; a Government that listens to the people. That is something that we on this side of the Chamber would like to see.The feedback I am getting from across my constituency—in fact across New Zealand as I go and make small business visits and so on—is that the Government is no longer listening. It is a Government that has said: “Goodbye. Farewell. We’ve got our own agenda and we’re implementing it. Here we go. We’ll listen to your submissions with beans in our ears. We’ll sit in the select committee we’ll nod we’ll shuffle our feet but we won’t really listen because we are under instructions from Minister Joyce to get on with it to subsume everything into the massive monolith of ‘MoBIE’ which has its great big sign outside its $140000 TV screen its $260000 sun deck with barbecues its hair straighteners its $23000 fridge. That ministry should absorb everything.” That is Steven Joyce’s agenda as we have seen—to create this monolith. This is another aspect of that empire that he is building. He is pulling the standards-setting procedures inside that.No doubt within a matter of months he will be choosing the colours of its brochures. He will be saying to the standards and accreditation committee: “You’re not communicating with the public the way I like. Set your brochures out in landscape format—landscape format. I’ve had enough of this portrait format; we need some landscape format.” That will be Steven Joyce. You can guarantee it. He has got a track record on this stuff. He will be rewriting the submissions. He will be controlling the whole jolly thing. We will still see exports falling as a percentage of GDP as they have continuously with this Minister.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Title and commencement—title and commencement remember that.Dr DAVID CLARK: Title and commencement. And so if we push this out to 2018 we would see more sensible decision-making. We would not see this particular aspect of our important arrangements pulled into the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment under the control of Steven Joyce and his mega-ministry which is appealing to the multinationals. We would see it focused more nearly on the interests of small and emerging businesses—those businesses that are going to diversify our economy and those businesses that are going to bring future prosperity to our country.We need a Government with vision. We need a Government that makes sensible decisions and that listens to submitters. Therefore if we push the commencement of this bill out until April 2018 we hope that we will have such a Government—a Government that listens to the people a Labour-led Government a Government of the future that is looking to diversify the economy. That is why my submission is that we should change that clause to ensure a more sensible decision-making process. Thank you.BRETT HUDSON (National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.A party votewas called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Clause 1 agreed to.A party votewas called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.