Standards and Accreditation Bill

I move, That the Standards and Accreditation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 31 March 2015. This bill puts in place new arrangements for the development and approval of standards in New Zealand, and makes minor amendments to the institutional arrangements for the Testing Laboratory Registration Council.

A review of New Zealand’s standards regime was triggered in 2012 by the Standards Council’s not being financially sustainable in the medium to long term. The review found that there is a need to improve the responsiveness of the current arrangements for delivering standards in New Zealand to better meet the needs of business consumers and regulators, and to increase the contribution to the Government’s objectives, such as economic growth, international trade, innovation, and health and safety—for example, feedback from users included a desire to speed up the development of standards, to maintain the currency of the Standards Catalogue, and to keep pace with changes in technology and best practice. There was also an expectation for the standards to be more readily accessible online.

Without the bill, standards developed in New Zealand are not likely to remain fit for purpose over time—for example, standards that are cited in a regulation could be out of date, which would result in poor health and safety outcomes. This legislation will ensure New Zealand’s standards and conformance system is viable and well-functioning, and meets the needs of business regulators and consumers into the foreseeable future.

Under the new arrangements, approval of standards and standards development committees will be undertaken by a new, independent statutory board called the New Zealand Standards Approval Board. A new, independent statutory officer, the NZ Standards Executive, will be responsible for standards development, including the formation of balanced development committees. The bill also explicitly preserves and strengthens some key aspects of the current arrangements—for example, balanced, independent committees consisting of experts from across the relevant sector will continue to develop and revise standards.

To protect the robust reputation of New Zealand standards and ensure that they remain internationally authoritative and credible, independence from industry regulators and the Government has been built into every part of the system. The board will make decisions on standards and committee membership with regard to clear criteria in the legislation. Neither the board nor the NZ Standards Executive will be subject to the direction of the responsible Minister. The board will advise the Minister on standards, the standards work programme, and current and emerging trends in standards.

The NZ Standards Executive will be an independent statutory officer located within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and will be subject to public accountability requirements and the scrutiny of the Ombudsman. The Standards Executive will have functions to establish and maintain a work programme for the development, maintenance, and review of standards, as well as to make arrangements for public access to standards.

Locating the standards development function within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is expected to help ensure that standards contribute more effectively to innovation, economic growth, international trade, and health and safety. Further, this move should facilitate more effective coordination with regulators who are key commissioners and users of standards, and enhance the visibility and credibility of standards within other parts of Government.

It is vital for New Zealand to maintain its linkages with the international standards community, including the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission. The functions of the NZ Standards Executive include assuming responsibility for New Zealand’s membership of these international organisations, and cooperating with international standards organisations to develop draft standards. Standards development and approval will continue to be undertaken in accordance with guidance from the ISO and the International Electrotechnical Commission, and will continue to meet New Zealand’s obligations in relation to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. These international obligations are integrated into the statutory criteria that will guide the board’s decisions.

Finally, the bill strengthens the current cost-recovery model for standards. It provides a framework to enable the NZ Standards Executive to set fees for access to standards, and to recover the costs associated with developing, approving, maintaining and providing access to New Zealand standards. The framework provides a balance between the initial development cost and ongoing access costs for particular standards to be negotiated and agreed between the NZ Standards Executive and those commissioning New Zealand standards.

The bill also specifies principles that the NZ Standards Executive must have regard to in setting the fees or charges for cost recovery—namely equity, efficiency, transparency, and flexibility. Collectively, these measures are intended to ensure the standards system is financially sustainable, with flexibility in the recovery of costs available through a negotiated combination of development and access costs with those who commission standards.

The bill makes minor amendments to the Copyright Act 1994 to maintain existing copyright protection for standards. This is important to protect the intellectual property of third parties, including that of international parties used in New Zealand standards.

In relation to accreditation, the bill renames the Testing Laboratory Registration Council as the Accreditation Council to better reflect the nature of its functions. It also changes the composition and appointment process for the council, in accordance with good governance principles.

In conclusion, standards and accreditation of conformity assessment facilitate trade, promote innovation, and enable firms to leverage competitive advantage. As noted, standards are also often cited in legislation and thereby support the Government’s regulatory outcomes. The new arrangements will ensure that the value and contribution of standards and conformity assessment to New Zealand’s trade and overall well-being continues and is maximised. These arrangements for standards and accreditation will contribute to the Business Growth Agenda in two ways: first, a well-managed standards system builds innovation by facilitating the creation and diffusion of technology by codifying technical excellence; and, second, the new arrangements support exports by preserving New Zealand’s connections to international standards organisations and ensuring international expectations are met. The new arrangements will also provide a high-quality service to business, reflecting the Government’s priority for efficient business-facing services.

I look forward to progressing this bill through the House. Thank you.

I am pleased to see that down at the back the new members were not chloroformed by that speech by Paul Goldsmith, because it was a cracker.

I commend the new Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. Unlike Mr Foss, he has grabbed his second piece of legislation and introduced it in the House. But I do make this point to the Minister. This bill is an interesting one because, of course, it was introduced in a different form by the Labour Government in 2008 to modernise and simplify the Government’s arrangements of the Standards Council and Testing Laboratory Registration Council and to separate their governance and technical advisory functions. So it was introduced in 2008. This crew comes into power—I think it was Mr Foss or maybe Mr Power; I am not sure—and the bill languished, and was canned by the Government in 2012. And then, after 6 years of reviews, discussions, interactions, reports, and a whole lot of other hot air, we come back now to a piece of legislation that establishes a so-called independent statutory board to approve New Zealand standards. And finally this is being read in the House.

Well, I have got to say to the new Minister that he is better than the last guy, because we know that the last Minister’s legislation was sort of like trying to pull barbed wire off a fence, as his legislation sort of trundled through and was delayed and delayed. So I do commend the Minister, not so much for the esprit de corps, the zing, and the vibrancy of his speech on such a colourful topic as New Zealand standards, but for bringing it into the House with some swiftness. But I need to ask him—and I am sure he or other speakers will advise us of this—why, after such a long gestation period, 6 long years of almost total inaction except for a lot of hot air, there is an expedited reporting date of 31 March. It could be that the Minister has decided: “Hey, this has sat around long enough. My predecessor let it gather dust, mould and other biological bits of matter, and we’re going to punch it through.” Or could it be that he has adopted a model—and I think this is true, judging by some of the commentary—that is out of step with what those outside the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, those in the standards industry, would want?

We will support this bill’s referral to a select committee because we want to allow those outside entities, and those individuals who are experts and are not in the bureaucracy but in the real world, to have their say on this piece of legislation. But it is a worry that a piece of legislation, or the entity contained within it, the standards authority, is on the one hand called independent, but on the other hand, according to the option the Government has gone for, it is embedded inside the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which I am advised—looking at some of the independent commentary—is exactly what many of the external experts did not want. They wanted total independence because it is important, on a more serious note, that we take standards seriously.

We note from the evidence from the tragedy of Pike River that where poor standards of operational practice are implemented, you can get, you do get, and you have got, sadly, the tragedy that is Pike River. One could make the same argument in respect of some aspects of building practice—perhaps in respect of the Canterbury earthquake. Those are some issues that are yet to be tested, I think, in other places. But I just wonder why the Minister has adopted this model.

Why did he not move to have a standards entity and agency that was totally independent from the Government bureaucracy? Yes, that may well indeed come with a cost, and, yes, I note from the legislation that it establishes a new, independent statutory board to approve New Zealand standards. I grant him that. But one would have assumed that the board, and all the tentacles that will hang off it in terms of its committee, its authorities, its approval, etc., would have had more credibility had it been completely independent and outside the bureaucracy. This is now the embedded model and, as I say to the Minister, this is the feedback that we have had from those outside who are deeply concerned that we get this right—and I think this is not a particularly political bill.

I think we all agree there should be high standards when it comes to operational performance, and many of the examples of where we have been let down give evidence to this. However, I think there will be some colourful debate about the particular model the Government has chosen. I would have thought that when standards are being put in place you would want not just statutory independence but also to be seen to have total independence from the bureaucracy whose authority is derived from the Crown. Then when those standards are approved, declined, or put in place, it means that they are done independently and they have huge credibility and weight.

I simply say to the Minister that I would be grateful if at some point—and I am sure it will come through the select committee process, via the officials—he or his department could give some justification for this. It may be there is a good reason. I hope the reason is not just simply a bit of cost saving, a bit of efficiency, and moving a few chairs around in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. I think the objective here, cross-party, is to ensure we get a robust agency to approve, decline, and police standards across the board, in all the areas that the Minister has mentioned, and especially in respect of safety—especially in respect of safety. Sadly, through Pike River, tragically, through aspects of the earthquake, and in other places, like forestry, the ports—you name it—all these issues derive from standards of operational performance. I would have thought we would want not only to achieve the highest possible standards but to achieve them in a way that they would have total independence, and that they would be free from any sort of implied or direct influence from Government or the bureaucracy, and therefore they would have huge credibility.

I say to the Minister that we would like an explanation on this because we want to get it right. I say again that poor standards implemented well can lead to disaster, and they have done. I think, as we have moved through the Pike River tragedy and, as the commission has reported, through the earthquake, and as we have moved through those sorts of graphic examples where there have been systems failures—one derived from mother Nature, obviously—where buildings, for instance, did not live up to what we perceived they would do, then surely that is the appropriate motivation to ensure that we get this thing right. Having an expedited reporting period, I cannot quite understand—31 March. Given that this issue has hung around in various forms, that it has almost sort of rotted in terms of stagnation, I cannot understand why the Minister would want to somehow snap his fingers and punch something through. The point of going through the legislative process, and especially the select committee process in respect of a bill like this, is to get all those experts in, to get them to have a very, very close look at this legislation, and to get it right. There is even greater emphasis on a bill like this, because it is about standards in various guises, but particularly safety standards.

I would have thought we would want to take the appropriate time to go through the legislation and to ensure that we get it right. Or are we, you know—excuse the pun—dropping our own standards of performance in terms of processing legislation because the Government has made up its mind that this is the model we are going to enact? “We have got it right. We will go through the motions of listening to the so-called independent experts. But we are going to do it anyway, so let us not mess around. Let us punch through it.”

I have always been of the belief that independent contestable advice put up against the bureaucracy has a massively high value—massively high value. Our courts are independent for a very good reason. But this is about an agency setting and approving standards, which can be extremely controversial, depending on what industry you are dealing with, and a heck of a lot of lobbying goes on. But I would have thought you would want to give this agency almost the stature, if you like, of an Ombudsman or the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment so that they are totally removed from the bureaucracy and, therefore, by definition, the Government, thereby raising the standard and raising the credibility of that authority as they go through and impose or decline the highest possible standards—for instance, to keep our citizenry safe.

I do not like the fact that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is going to be so close. I do not like the fact that it is going to have certain powers as mentioned in this legislation. There should be, I think, total independence. But I welcome the Minister’s input. I welcome the department’s justification during the select committee process. My appeal to the Minister is that he take on board those experts who will come before the Commerce Committee, that he will take on board their views, and that he will not rush this process. If we do need more time, then my plea to him is that he give us that time in order to get it right.

This is my first opportunity to speak as the newly appointed chair of the Commerce Committee, so I would like to start by acknowledging the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, for bringing this bill to the House. I would like to start off by commending the member who just sat down, Clayton Cosgrove. I will be working closely with him in the Commerce Committee and I look forward to having discussions.

We hold high standards in this Parliament. When I got this bill and I was told I had to actually speak on it, I started thinking about standards. I thought I could start off with comments about keeping standards in the Labour Party, but I thought that would be overly political. I thought I had better not comment about the Labour leadership. I thought I had better not start off with the Labour leadership and thought that I should actually speak about the bill.

The aim of the bill is to amend and consolidate the law relating to standards and conformity assessment bodies and to repeal and replace the Standards Act 1988 and also the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972, among others. The reason we are doing this is to make sure that the New Zealand standards systems are actually viable, well functioning, and meet the needs of the businesses, regulators, and consumers—I guess pretty much futureproofing.

When Mr Cosgrove talked about having standards to make sure that New Zealanders are kept safe, I agreed with him. We have had some disasters in this country where good standards might have actually prevented some of those disasters. I look forward to the submissions during the select committee process when we will hear from experts and from communities as to what kinds of standards we actually need to have in this country.

I think the importance of bringing this bill is that the National-led Government has always been focused on boosting growth and creating jobs. This has been said over and over again, but I reiterate that a strong economy can provide financial security for families, opportunities for our young people, safer communities, higher qualifications for our children, and better education and health services, which are required by all New Zealanders. A more productive and competitive economy actually needs standards—from product standards to building standards, energy safety, environmental management, and information technology standards as well.

I know that Mr Cosgrove talked about wanting an independent standards authority, but there is also another view. We deal with a lot of overseas nations. We trade with them. Sometimes, with regard to standards, a Government entity is better recognised than an independent one. There will be different views from the different organisations that will actually submit, so I look forward to those discussions that we will have in the select committee process.

Generally, standards are voluntary, but standards can be mandatory when it is actually cited in Acts and regulations that there are agreed specifications for products, processes, services, and performances. For example, if an electrical product is marked as meeting a particular standard, it actually means that it is meeting the minimum safety standard requirements. This bill will establish a new independent statutory board to approve New Zealand standards with a new independent statutory officer from within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, as has been said. The bill will also ensure that an independent standard development committee will continue to comprise industry and technical experts, consumer representatives, and regulators. This is a good bill. I commend it to the House.

I would like to offer my congratulations to Melissa Lee as the new chair of the Commerce Committee. Let us hope that the standards on the Commerce Committee remain high. I think that Clayton Cosgrove’s contribution in the House today has set the standard for discussion on bills that go before that committee—that august committee where there is much intelligent conversation.

💬 Kris Faafoi: August.

August—and I do hope that that continues. I just want to quickly give the House a little bit of a history lesson around the Standards and Accreditation Bill, because it appears, in the way it has been couched today by the Government, that it somehow miraculously came out of a review that happened in 2012, initiated by the Government. Well, that is not the case. This is actually legislation that stems back to the previous Labour Government and a review that was undertaken then by the then Minister of Commerce, the Hon Lianne Dalziel. If I recall, having sat on the Commerce Committee with her for the first 3 years in Opposition, she was extremely passionate about standards, about the importance of standards, and about the lack of action that was happening in this Government around the modernisation of standards and the governance of standards.

Thankfully, we are now at the point of having gone through a review. That review in 2012, just by the way, actually attracted 115 submissions. I can say they were quite intense submissions, having had a chance to go through them all, and if that is any indication of the importance that this issue is given by the community, then I think that what we are going to see in the select committee is a replication of that.

I would like to echo my colleague Clayton Cosgrove’s view that pushing this bill through without the proper scrutiny would be a big mistake. The standards underpinning any industry activity in our country need to be standards that are robust. Therefore, the body that creates those standards, maintains them, and keeps a watchful eye on them needs to be a body that has the respect, trust, integrity, and also resources required to ensure that it actually does the job.

That brings me to my questions. It pretty much appears that the option that is being pushed by the Government to move the standards body function to within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is actually driven by cost cutting—a desire to actually reduce the costs of running a standards body. If that is the case, then I have got a problem with that. We are supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee, but that will be one of the issues we will be keeping a very close eye on. We will be listening to what the industry says because of those 115 submissions on that review, the vast majority were very concerned about moving the standards function to within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and creating a standards officer, or whatever the term being used is—a standards statutory officer role within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. My question is whether that is adequate. Is that actually going to do the job, and is there going to be the strength and the weight behind that function within the ministry to actually maintain that job?

These are some of the things the submitters said. They did not think that pushing the function within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment would achieve the necessary independence. They said that independence could not be achieved under this model, that there was the possibility of capture by well-resourced and influential stakeholders, that the New Zealand Standards Approval Board could not be fully impartial when both assessing standards and approving standards development organisations to develop standards, and that statutory independence is not possible if members of the standards board are appointed by the Government. I think that there has been some taking account of those views in the response by the ministry and in the legislation we see before us, but I am not sure that that is enough.

The second point is linked to that. It is around cost. Even the regulatory impact statement itself says on its first page: “The advice we have received suggested that overall costs of Standards development can be reduced by moving the function into a larger organisation.” What that suggests, and what I fear, is that that is the main reason for doing it—that it is actually being driven not by common sense or by wanting to improve the service, but by the desire to cut costs. If that is the case, and if we are talking about environmental standards and building standards, these things are pretty important because they underpin the way that we operate and they underpin the trust we have in our industries in the way they are carried out.

The third point that I would like to make—the third issue—is in regard to the amendment of the Copyright Act, which is a pretty significant part. It is not covered very greatly in the legislation that is before us or by the words of the Minister today, but it is obviously of enough significance to have its own regulatory impact statement produced by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which I have to say does give me some concern because the proposed new organisation’s home is going to be within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. So I will put that on the record as a concern in the first place. It would seem to me that the regulatory impact statement could have been produced independently through an audit by Treasury or something in order to actually provide some true independence.

An issue that was raised around what is proposed is that the bill is amending section 27 of the Copyright Act 1994, as stated in the explanatory note, “to maintain existing copyright protections for standards. This amendment is important to protect intellectual property owned by third parties (including international parties) and … to remove uncertainty in the application of copyright or Crown copyright in New Zealand Standards … as a result of moving the standards development function into a Ministry.”

That all sounds, on the surface, perfectly reasonable. The concerns that were raised by the Standards Council around this potential move were that copyright in standards is a key issue and that discussions have focused on international intellectual property and royalty arrangements and the need to honour obligations and enforcement in copyright. It does appear as if the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has gone to some lengths to try to work out what those issues are and how they can be addressed, and to propose an option that provides copyright protection similar to the current standards, and legislative certainty to eliminate risk of standards becoming freely available.

My concern, though—and it is what I will be raising in the committee, and I will be hoping and am pretty sure that there will submitters on this—is whether it is not time that we looked at this a bit differently. Is it not time that we stopped looking at this from within a prism of solely protection and looked at the availability and opening up of copyright and open standards? It was Labour’s policy going into the election to take standards seriously and to take a modern approach to this with the aim of moving towards genuine openness and transparency in Government—which this Government says it is doing, but in practice I have got grave concerns it is not—where thoroughly documented, open standards are made publicly available at no cost.

This is not new. It follows the UK Government’s definition of open standards. I think it is something that we need to have a conversation about in the select committee. If we are to be a truly modern Government and if we are doing a lot of stuff electronically online, there are questions about how open these standards should be, and we need to go back to some parts of the first-principles discussion around copyright protection.

So I think there are some significant issues that we need to put on the table for the select committee. Some of these issues around copyright were raised in the submissions to the review that led to this legislation. I just hope that the Minister and the officials are listening. Thank you.

It is a privilege to be able to stand and speak in favour of this bill at its first reading. This National Government is focused on boosting growth and on creating more and higher-paying jobs. Standards contribute to a more productive and more competitive economy. They improve the safety and reliability of many goods and services used by consumers and businesses every day.

This Standards and Accreditation Bill is part of our Business Growth Agenda and it strengthens the development and delivery of New Zealand standards. A well-managed standards system builds innovation by facilitating the creation and diffusion of technology, by codifying technical excellence, and by protecting that which New Zealand businesses create. Secondly, the arrangements that are proposed support exports by preserving New Zealand’s connections to international standards organisations and ensuring that the expectations of the international community are met.

I would like to commend the pragmatism and insight of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs in proposing under this bill the independence that matters the most: statutory independence of the board and of the executive officer. Granting them that statutory independence will mean that both can operate with neither fear nor favour of any undue influence—or any influence at all, in fact—from the responsible Minister, from officials, or, indeed, from the department they might share quarters with.

But I tell you what: that is a very pragmatic decision because the alternative, of course, would simply be to squander taxpayer money on duplicate systems, duplicate real estate, and duplicate facilities for no good purpose. It would give nothing greater to the powers or to the actions and outcomes of either that board or that individual if they happened to be housed in their own building. But what I would say is that by locating the function within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, it is anticipated that it will ensure that the standards that they are working on reviewing, proposing, and approving are linked more effectively to the innovation, the economic growth, and the international trade that this country is seeking to expand upon. So I do congratulate the Minister on a very pragmatic approach to very important issues.

I would also like to comment very briefly on the cost recovery measure that has been proposed. That is going to strengthen the ability of the NZ Standards Executive to set fees that have regard to equity, efficiency, transparency, and flexibility. It will also make sure that the standards that we develop and need to maintain are, in fact, adequately catered for and that both his role and the board’s role can be discharged effectively. So I would just like to conclude by saying that I think this is a sound and pragmatic bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

I rise to offer the Green Party’s support for the Standards and Accreditation Bill being read a first time and referred to the Commerce Committee for the consideration of submissions.

I was lucky some years ago to do a piece of work for the British Standards Institution exploring the development of a new standard for ethical fashion—in other words, items of clothing that conformed to fair trade, organic cotton, non-chemical dyes, etc. This is only one of several tens of thousands of standards that the British Standards Institution had developed and maintained over time. The British Standards Institution is probably the world’s leading institution in this field, and I am sure that it will be an example that will be examined by those who are working on this bill.

There comes a time when any piece of legislation should be reviewed to ensure that it is still fit for purpose, and both the Standards Act and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act have been on the statute book for almost as long as I have been alive—since 1988 and 1972 respectively—so it is pleasing that in 2012 the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment took the initiative to undertake a review of those legislative provisions, and, during the review process, undertook extensive consultation with stakeholders. It did find that the current provisions were no longer fit for purpose and that change was required to the national standards body because, in particular, it was not financially sustainable within its current business model, given its operating environment. This is hardly surprising, given, for example, that a Testing Laboratory Registration Council - accredited laboratory is now a requirement for over $20 billion of New Zealand’s exports, which was something that probably was not foreseen in 1972, when its Act was passed.

The Green Party acknowledges that a well-functioning standards system must have sufficient flexibility to align with Government priorities, such as innovation and trade facilitation. However, we also would like to stress the point that is contained in this draft bill of keeping the actual process of developing standards independent and free from interference by Ministers or ministries. That is essential in order to maintain the integrity of our standards and to maintain public confidence in them, both in New Zealand and among our trading partners. In that regard, I think that the Government has got the balance just about right with this bill, by maintaining the statutory independence of the new New Zealand Standards Approval Board, the NZ Standards Executive, and the Accreditation Council from the Minister and the ministry.

One aspect that I would question is whether it is appropriate for the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to appoint the entirety of the membership of the New Zealand Standards Approval Board, as the bill currently provides. Although the board will be required to be statutorily independent, having the Minister appoint all of its members, including the chairperson, could be seen to be giving rise to cronyism and to the perception of undue ministerial influence through ministerial appointments over the decisions and recommendations of the board. So perhaps some consideration should be given to having the sectors that contribute to the standards appointing at least some of the membership of the board directly, rather than having all of the appointments being made by the Minister. That is an issue that I hope the select committee will address.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment reported back largely positive feedback from stakeholders in the development of the policy upon which the bill is based. The select committee process will provide a further opportunity for stakeholders and for the wider public to have input into a piece of legislation that is necessary but that could be seen to be quite complex. The Green Party is supporting this bill being referred to the select committee.

I commend the member Melissa Lee—although she is not here—for her appointment as the Commerce Committee chair. She was part of training us as new MPs over the 2-week programme, and I say to her, may her professionalism reign.

💬 Simon O’Connor: In martial arts, or—

Yes. This bill arises from a review that was undertaken by the former Ministry of Economic Development in May 2007. It is important to note that the findings suggested that the infrastructure relating to standards and accreditation was actually basically sound, and, specifically, that a discussion document also released by the Ministry of Economic Development had no actual submissions regarding the governance arrangements of these Crown entities. This bill sets out to ensure that the New Zealand standards and conformance system is viable and functioning well. It has been noted that in order to do this, the Standards Act 1988 and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972 will both be repealed.

Just because I question the timing of this bill does not mean that New Zealand First is against what it sets out to achieve. New Zealand First, in fact, stands in support of this bill because we are a party that always supports New Zealand consumers and ensures they are well looked after. Beyond this, the stated intent of the bill is to ensure that the New Zealand standards being developed align with priorities such as innovation and trade facilitation to develop a more productive economy. As stated last week in speaking to the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill, New Zealand First will always support legislation that seeks to improve the frameworks within which New Zealand business operates.

To frame New Zealand First’s stance on this bill, we need to ask the following questions: will it meet the needs of business and—importantly—consumers moving into the foreseeable future; and will our regulators be able to work effectively and efficiently within the frameworks being provided for here? I quote: “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 the public:”. There are questions to be asked with regard to all parts of this purpose statement. Does consistency compromise safety to New Zealand consumers if the current international standard is less than what we would ourselves accept? Access to consumer goods from around the world exposes New Zealand consumers to a plethora of experiences and useful and, admittedly, sometimes completely redundant gadgets, but, related to the first part, trade is good so long as our New Zealand standards are maintained. Both of these questions I have asked always come back to the safety of the New Zealand public. New Zealand First believes that this should always be our first concern.

The bill sets out to establish the independent New Zealand Standards Approval Board. Alongside this there will be an official position created—namely, the NZ Standards Executive. This person will be responsible for the oversight of New Zealand’s standards and will be employed directly by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

I earlier asked the question of whether this bill supports our local businesses. My interpretation at this stage would suggest that the intent is there. It is fair to say that internationally aligned standards will facilitate trade. Those same standards will allow for innovative businesses to understand what is required of them before they even begin their development and what is required with regard to standards across a large international cohort of trade partners. Understanding these requirements and what the international competition is able to take advantage of in their own home countries will allow New Zealand innovators and entrepreneurs to take advantage of our own competitive advantages available at home.

To continue, it is noted that this bill will ensure that we are able to maintain confidence and credibility in the standards development and approval process and in the process of accreditation. This credibility is so very important for New Zealand businesses looking to export their goods. New Zealand First would like to see a high level of assurance that the standards and conformance system is responsive to demands from industry and, of course, our consumers.

Although I commend the bill, its stated intent to operate on a financially sustainable footing, and its being undertaken in a cost-effective manner, we must be wary again of so-called cost savings compromising the delivery of what is clearly an essential service. I make reference to our border security as an example of so-called cost savings, where an entire industry in several regions across our country lost billions of dollars. I also use a more recent example of the so-called cost savings in the tertiary sector, which are now leading to the dismissal of staff and the shutting down of core departments within large institutions. Cost savings are now compromising the delivery of what I would deem to be core services. It is on record that this bill and the standards committee in particular will have oversight of $20 billion worth of goods. This is an essential service and must be adequately funded.

With regard to the function of the board, I commend the intent to clarify the role of the board. Governance and operational issues can blur the lines of what exactly the role of the board members is. It is of some concern that the board is embedded within the ministry, and also that the board would be appointed by the Minister. I understand that the preliminary feedback from industry players suggests that this model is not ideal.

As with many international issues, New Zealand business seems to bear the burden of harsher requirements. We need to be confident that, as stated, import businesses can be more assured that the products they are importing are much more likely to be up to standard. If we can be assured that international standards do conform to and match our own high levels, then this kind of regulation, implemented fairly around the world, does work both ways. That is to the advantage of New Zealand businesses. When we can assume that other countries and manufacturers are working to the same standards as we are, then we can be sure that the playing field is an even one. I appreciate that we cannot legislate for other countries, but our committee can be advised to keep this kind of standard in mind in its considerations.

Conversely, in order to support our export market, international markets should feel comfortable with New Zealand’s standards. Currently, our standards are well regarded internationally, and these cannot be compromised. I acknowledge the level of complexity that many markets and industries involve. They involve incredibly rapidly developing technologies, and so a smaller committee for standards should be more responsive in an evermore rapidly changing world.

There are many questions around the margin, questions about the detail. As stated, New Zealand First supports this bill. However, given some preliminary conversations with industry that spoke against some of the detail provided, it is essential that the public of New Zealand be given their chance to speak to this bill. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the first reading of the Standards and Accreditation Bill. As consumers, we have minimum expectations of a product or a service. These expectations are what we have come to know as standards. Standards ensure that consumers can buy a product or service with confidence, and businesses can market and sell their products and services with confidence, knowing that these products meet the customers’ expectations as well as health and safety requirements. The Standards and Accreditation Bill follows a comprehensive review to ensure that our standards system is independent and sustainable. With these words, I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak in support of the Standards and Accreditation Bill. As my colleague James Shaw has indicated, we will support this bill’s referral to a select committee. As our spokesperson for consumer affairs, I am very aware that this bill has the potential to impact on all areas of New Zealand society. It may have a dry name, but it is absolutely critical law.

At the moment we have over 3,000 New Zealand standards, and we are looking at over 50,000 more from overseas. These standards play a critical role because they are clear and confident. They set health and safety standards, they ensure that products are reliable and that they are safe to use, they can minimise risk in a disaster, and so on. It is incredibly important that we can have faith in the regulatory body that oversees the setting and implementation of these standards because we rely on these standards to keep us safe as consumers. They set the standards for playgrounds, for electrical equipment, for banking—for all areas of our lives. To do that, we need to have trust that the relevant expertise has been drawn upon in the setting of the standards and that the people involved have high standards of integrity and are trusted by all of society.

It is also incredibly important that the ability to set and maintain the standards is flexible enough to take into account modern innovation and that it updates to reflect the changing needs of different consumers. One area in particular that I have been involved in around standards, of course, has been standard 4121 in the building industry, which sets the standards around accessibility. That standard has stagnated and has not been updated to reflect the changes in wheelchair sizes, scooters, and so on, and also modern innovation. So people have been very, very frustrated with the slow pace to update that standard, and I am sure that, as with the other standards, people have been really frustrated that the necessary updating of the standard has not appeared in a timely fashion. We hope that the restructure will allow for a more rapid response to changing consumer needs.

It is also incredibly important that we hear from the people who are involved with the setting and maintenance of these standards, including people like health and safety representatives, councils, the regulatory body, and consumers themselves, as well as people from the industry, as to how they perceive the current system is working and how this bill will make things better for them. It is an incredibly important bill, and it is incredibly important that we get this restructuring right. So we support the bill’s referral to a select committee, but we will be listening very carefully to the feedback from submitters. Thank you.

I am happy to take a fairly brief call on this standards legislation. I want to say that the Labour Party will be supporting the bill’s referral to the select committee, and we look forward to the debate. We do have some further things that we will be looking for clarification on at such time as we get to have those hearings.

The Standards and Accreditation Bill is long overdue. I think there are many elements of it that the New Zealand public should be very supportive of. I think that when we talk about standards, though, we should be clear what we are talking about. Standards impact on every part of our day-to-day lives, whether they are building standards, the standards for appliances we purchase, or standards related to workplaces.

One of the reasons that standards are important from an employee perspective is that there is a significant health and safety factor. One of things that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has quite rightly raised with regard to this review is its desire to see union and worker representation in the development process for standards. I actually think this is very, very important. If you look at health and safety in the workplace, for example, take an industry that I have become familiar with in the last few months—the forestry sector. I think we do need to have workers much more involved in the development of standards within the forestry sector because we need to get that wider buy-in to what has been going on there. If we are going to address health and safety in the forestry sector, then it will need to involve all the players in the forestry sector. I think that is a good example of why making sure that the standards that get set have good buy-in and are well supported. So that is the first point I would like to make. I am going to be looking, as this bill progresses, to ensure that there is adequate worker representation throughout the process. You will have to forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have somewhat of a rusty throat today.

I do want to also then talk about—

💬 Kris Faafoi: Rusty?

—rusty, very rusty—the importance of the independence from Government. When it comes to setting standards, we know that if this was left up to the current Government, the standards would be moved every day. One of the critical things about standards is that you set standards so that there is a reliable benchmark, so that people know where they stand, and yet we do not seem to have that with the Government. For example, a classic case in point—

💬 Simon O’Connor: A national standard.

Well, national standards are a great example. National standards would not survive the scrutiny that this bill proposes. National standards are neither national nor standard, so they would fail at the first hurdle. But then John Key’s standards for Ministers would also fail at the first hurdle because they change depending on who the Minister is. For example, we know that there was a certain level of standard for Judith Collins. She seemed to manage to get away with a lot of stuff then suddenly the standards changed and she was out. It was the same with Maurice Williamson—suddenly he was out. We had examples today where John Key fails to meet his own standards, but apparently that is OK because when he did not meet his own standards he was not acting as Prime Minister; he was acting as leader of the National Party, so therefore the standard really depends on which hat he is wearing at the time. I think that having independence from Government when it comes to setting standards is very important, because we know where we stand, so to speak, when standards are set by an independent body. We certainly do not know where we stand when they are set by this current National Government.

So we will be looking forward to seeing this bill progress through. There are some very positive aspects to it. When I started at the beginning, I mentioned that this bill was very long overdue. There was, of course, a bill drafted in 2008 by the previous Labour Government. It was all ready to go and that, of course, was stalled by the current National Government for 6 years. It is now finally getting around to progressing this legislation and I think that that will be a welcome thing. There were 6 years of reviews, discussions, submissions, and inaction, overall, but that seems to be the case with this Government. It is quite often very lost in what it is trying to do. It just has another review—another consultation process, another review, and nothing ever gets done. We are pleased to see that this bill is now finally progressing. I think that we will be following the debate very closely. Thank you very much.

I am pleased to rise to speak briefly to this bill. I need to respond to Chris Hipkins, my colleague across the House. I think the standards of this Government have been incredibly high and have been well recognised—accredited, if you would like—with an almost 50 percent vote to return us here to the House. So you could not get a higher accreditation. I will not, though, make a contrast with the other side.

This is an important bill. I am very pleased to see that there is a range of support across the House, and I commend it to the House.

I would like to begin by agreeing with the Green Party member Mojo Mathers that although this piece of legislation has a relatively mundane title, it is a very important piece of legislation for the everyday lives of Kiwis. We are talking about standards. A lot of things happen—and we expect them to happen—out there in the community, because there are standards out there. So this is a very important piece of legislation, and we on this side of the House have said that we will be supporting its referral to the Commerce Committee, where I look forward, as a member of that committee, to being able to ask a few questions of the Government and to hearing submissions from the public. I know there were a lot of submissions to the standards and infrastructure review that was run by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment earlier this year, and I will refer to some of those later on in my contribution. As I say, as a member of the august Commerce Committee—and I would like to congratulate Melissa Lee, who made a contribution—we are looking forward to hearing about this piece of legislation.

As I mentioned before, in everyday life there are standards everywhere, from members of the public expecting their cellphones to work to their expecting to be on the right frequency to ensure their phone calls come through, through to—as Chris Hipkins mentioned—standards surrounding health and safety. It has already been noted in this debate that a very similar piece of legislation introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2008 unfortunately sat dormant until this piece of legislation was introduced.

I think there have been plenty of missed opportunities since then, especially in the area of health and safety. A number of examples have been brought up already. I think the Hon Clayton Cosgrove talked about the health and safety standards surrounding Pike River, one of the worst industrial disasters or tragedies of our lifetime. Also there are issues around the forestry industry, where we have had—and I am looking at our spokesperson on that industry, Chris Hipkins—around 10 deaths in the last year. So there are some serious questions that need to be asked around health and safety and standards, and we have a duty as a Parliament to make sure that we get some of those small, technical things around frequencies right but also some of the really important things around health and safety right as well.

I would like to point out that in the 115 submissions to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment review, there was one significant submission from the Council of Trade Unions. I would like to thank the council for its submission, and to reiterate the point that Chris Hipkins made, which is that although we are going to hear from the likes of industry and experts, we do not want to forget the voice of the workers out there, especially when we have brought up two of those instances of mining disasters and tragedies, and serious, fatal accidents in the forestry industry. It is really important that this Parliament encourage the voice of workers to be heard at the select committee deliberation on this bill.

There are a number of other things that have been mentioned already on this side of the House that concern us, which I think will be raised at the select committee, and those are around the motivation for the changes and why they are happening now. There is a suspicion that this bill is motivated by cost cutting and that the motivation is not necessarily there to make sure that we have a robust standards infrastructure here, because all of a sudden this piece of legislation has arrived on the Table. It could be the fact that the new Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has taken very little time to take the razor to his department and is looking for cost savings, and we are very concerned about that being the driving motivation behind this legislation. You have only to look at the regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to understand that there could be significant cost savings if the Government’s intention to change the way that the standards come about is seen through.

There were three options before Cabinet. The first was to keep the status quo. The second option in the regulatory impact statement was to have the standards development function that we are looking at in this bill undertaken by International Accreditation New Zealand. The third option was that the function of standards development be undertaken by the statutory officer located in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and that is the preferred option that is within this legislation. On page 10 of the regulatory impact statement there is quite a helpful table that shows significant cost savings by moving, as the Government intends, towards having this standards function within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. That is somewhere along the lines, I believe, of nearly $2.5 million or $3 million, which might not sound a lot in the bigger scheme of things, but when you think that this Government may have a bit of an agenda to try to cut costs, this is one way that it is looking at doing that.

We do not oppose efficiency if it is effective, but if this is a case of efficiency and cost cutting being done for the sake of cost cutting, then we do have some reservations as to why the Government may have structured this particular piece of legislation in the way it has. So I think that will certainly be one of the questions asked in the Commerce Committee—as to what is the driver of this piece of legislation. Is it the fact that we want to strengthen our standards bodies, or is it the fact that we want to take a bit of a razor to this department and restructure it to make some significant cost savings? I guess we will also get the chance to ask the Minister in the chair this question when we get to the Committee stage here in the House.

As I said at the beginning, this does sound, by title, a mundane piece of legislation, but there are a number of areas in everyday life where standards are important. As the broadcasting spokesperson, one of those areas is something simple like TV volume. You would be surprised at the number of people, usually elderly people, who come to me as the broadcasting spokesperson to ask me why there is not a standard for TV volume, especially for advertising. They may choose to use their own power when they are watching Parliament TV to push the mute button—and that is their right—but they certainly have come to me to ask why there is not a standard TV volume for advertising. There is always one particular company they are upset with, and that is Harvey Norman. When they watch an episode of, perhaps, Coronation Street on Television One, a staple show for many elderly people—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

—oh, OK! I take that back; I realise it has a broad audience—all of a sudden a Harvey Norman ad will come on, booming out of their televisions, and this obviously upsets the young and old. These are the kinds of standards that we are talking about here, which have a huge impact on us in our everyday lives.

I do not think we should just pooh-pooh this piece of legislation because it has a mundane title—the Standards and Accreditation Bill. This piece of legislation is important. We will refer it to the select committee, but not without reservations. I do want to reiterate that we are very concerned about the Government’s motivation around the cutting of costs and the placement of this new position within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. It has already been noted in an earlier contribution by Clare Curran that it is very interesting that the regulatory impact statement was done by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment when this new position is going to be located within the ministry. You would think that because there would be a perceived—and actually, a real—conflict of interest there, maybe the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment could have removed itself from the process, and there should have been an independent regulatory impact statement done on this piece of legislation.

In regard to our support, we will give the bill support to a select committee. We do have some reservations about the structure within the bill. Because it has probably come about from a piece of legislation that was introduced by the last Labour Government, we will, at this stage, support it, but we will be asking serious questions during the select committee deliberation. Thank you very much.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand for a very short call on this bill. I want to support this bill. This is a great achievement for our new Minister Paul Goldsmith. I have no doubt that it will be one of many bills that will come through this House. So, without any further ado, I support this bill. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.

on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: I move, That the Standards and Accreditation Bill be reported back to the House by 31 March 2015.

Motion agreed to.