Standards and Conformance Bill

We were discussing the Standards and Conformance Bill, and I was worried about the standards concerning noisy vehicles and the lack of a testing regime for noisy vehicles. Our legislation is out of sync with international standards. It has become weaker and harder to enforce over the last few years, while most countries, including the UK, Australia, and those in Europe, have tightened their standards. Australia has updated its requirements so that all new cars need to meet a test of 76 decibels, while New Zealand cars have to meet a test of only 81 decibels.

But the real problem is that we allow the modification of cars, with no commitment to a regular testing regime to ensure that even our inadequate standards are met. Cheap Japanese cars, with modified noisy exhausts, have been a consistent, persistent, and growing problem ever since Labour came to power, and over the last 6 years it has done absolutely nothing to solve it. If New Zealand is going to conform with international vehicle noise standards, we need to introduce a regular and compulsory testing regime, with an approved objective test, through vehicle-testing stations. The key is to have an objective test, because that is the only way we can guarantee consistency.

National opposes the Standards and Conformance Bill, but we do support improved and updated vehicle noise standards, and the introduction of a standardised objective test in vehicle-testing stations to ensure conformance to international standards. So I ask the Minister for Transport Safety, Mr Duynhoven, to please get on with it.

I firstly want to support my colleague Nicky Wagner in the quite powerful points she has made to the Committee about the mess the Government has made in respect of standards for noisy exhausts. The member for New Plymouth, Harry Duynhoven, was rolled by members of the noisy industry as a self-confessed boy racer. As a consequence, I myself and Nicky Wagner have heard complaints from communities all over New Zealand—Nelson, Christchurch, Hamilton, almost every corner of New Zealand—about the hopeless Government response to noisy boy racers. The Government allows 7,000 vehicles a year that are imported into New Zealand to have perfectly good muffler systems ripped out of them and be replaced with ones with wide bores that are designed to be as noisy as possible. In fact, I found out that in my own community of Nelson the equivalent of a 747’s noise is being created by the wide-bore muffler industry every single week.

What has the Government done? I can recite the contents of six press releases from Tim Barnett of Christchurch, who said he would bring a member’s bill into this House in 2004. That is over 2 years ago. Well, I have searched through the papers, gone to the Clerk’s Office, and crawled over the desks, looking for Mr Barnett’s member’s bill, and it is nowhere to be seen. He got the sexy story in the Christchurch Press, but he has not done a single thing.

And we keep getting statements from Harry Duynhoven. He issues press releases—I think he has them in the fax machine on automatic release every 6 months. “I am going to do something about noisy exhausts.”, he says. He puts the press statement out, and nothing happens for another 6 months. He puts it out again; nothing happens for another 6 months. It has become farcical.

Thankfully, there is somebody who is taking this issue seriously. Nicky Wagner has launched a proper member’s bill to deal with noisy racers, and to set some standards in place.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Bit late—it’s already done.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I ask Mr Duynhoven why the standard of noise for a car in New Zealand is less than that for a 12-axle truck in Australia. I sort of thought that New Zealanders were more environmentally conscious than Aussies, but here we have Harry Duynhoven and his boy-racer mates allowing that sort of abuse of New Zealanders. People staying in hotels are refusing to pay their bills the next morning and are walking away in disgust. Cafe owners in my own electorate of Nelson are frustrated out of their tree with this problem. Thousands of people have signed a petition launched by Nicky Wagner. And still the Government does nothing.

So I challenge the Government, in respect of this Standards and Conformance Bill, to actually do some doing, actually walk the talk, because for all the rhetoric, for all the waffly provisions we see in this bill, this Government in important areas like building standards and exhausts standards is doing nothing. In fact, I will re-emphasise a question that I have put to the Minister ad nauseam. Standards New Zealand says there is one set of standards for the treatment of construction timber for houses, but the Department of Building and Housing is saying something different. A number of building associations are saying: “Please tell us what the rules are.” The Minister in the chair, Lianne Dalziel, cannot tell us. She refuses; she does not know.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Part 2. We are doing Part 2 of the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, and I have a simple question for the Minister.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: This has got nothing to do with Part 2 of the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the bill is about Standards New Zealand, and Standards New Zealand has introduced a change in standards for timber treatment. We want to know what the standard is to which we have to build a house today. The Government does not know. So why should we be ramming through this Parliament the Standards and Conformance Bill, when the Government cannot answer something as basic as that? The reality is that for the first time in New Zealand history we have two different agencies of Government telling different stories about what the right standard is for something as critical as New Zealanders’ most important asset—their home. We do not know from this Government what the correct standard is. Why on earth should this Parliament advance a bill of this type, when there is that sort of confusion in the Government ranks over an issue as important as the standard of timber treatment, which is critical?

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: I am sorry to interrupt the member who is about to speak, but I seek leave to table a set of statements outlining the noise-testing procedures currently in place, and recently introduced.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that? Is there any objection. There is.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I simply challenge the member, Mr Harry Duynhoven, to take a call. If he wants to contribute to the debate, I would be delighted to have him answer the questions. Instead, I seek leave to table the very good member’s bill that is in the ballot in the name of Nicky Wagner, which will actually show some leadership on the issue of noise control for vehicles.

The CHAIRPERSON: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.

SANDRA GOUDIE: In speaking to Part 2, I would just like to look at the powers of the council, and also at the amendments to testing laboratory registration. I note that International Accreditation New Zealand has made a substantial submission with regard to that. Its members are concerned—they want to clarify—that the issue of competition created by the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand for inspection body accreditation is currently the subject of review by the Ministry of Economic Development. The council is concerned that continued competition for inspection body accreditation by the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand risks compromising confidence in, and the credibility of, New Zealand’s accreditation system for inspection bodies, particularly in regulated areas critical to safety and public health.

Actually, speaking of public health, I say we are concerned about the Government’s intention to require water quality standards throughout this country. It will place unbearable costs on to ratepayers to try to meet those water quality standards. That is a huge cost. We have a community of about 35 households, and 95 percent of the water is used for stock purposes, yet they will be required to meet the water quality standards set by this Government, at a cost of over $500,000. That is an insurmountable cost for any small community. Those communities just cannot afford to meet those sorts of standards.

The very Minister in the chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, says that standards are set with the input and consultation of all parties involved that have a major interest in them. I challenge her to take a call and explain the input into the water quality standards from all of the councils throughout New Zealand that will have to meet those standards. I put it to the Minister that that consultation was poor in the extreme, and that communities did not support having water quality standards set. Communities want to be able to make those decisions for themselves. They want to be able to choose the standard of water quality they want for their communities. If they want to set a lower or reduced standard, they should be able to choose that standard—it should be up to them. In actual fact, the water quality in the Canterbury area is so good that communities there are penalised by the water standard. Their water quality far exceeds the standard, yet the activities they have to undertake to meet the standard reduce the quality of their water.

In talking about the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand I would like to identify one of the other submitters’ concerns: the compliance costs. Of course, the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand states in its charter that it is a not-for-profit organisation. We should remember it is a joint committee between Australia and New Zealand. It has 10 members, and six of those members are Australian. It is meant to be a not-for-profit organisation, yet in 2005 its profit before tax was $773,000. That is pretty good for a not-for-profit organisation. We have to ask ourselves what the Minister was doing. Was a compliance report required? What was the assessment of the compliance costs involved in all of that profit? Was there an assessment of the charges, as was asked for by a number of the submitters? It is quite clear that the compliance analysis for this bill is so poor that we could consider it to have not been done at all.

I will go back to my original concern around the amendments to testing laboratory registration, and about International Accreditation New Zealand and its competition with the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call to explain how she has met the concern that was raised by International Accreditation New Zealand about the competition from the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. In the council’s view, the very same reasons that support that system having sole responsibility for the accreditation of certification apply equally in the case of International Accreditation New Zealand having sole responsibility for the accreditation of inspection. It is critical to the credibility of New Zealand’s accreditation system that International Accreditation New Zealand has sole responsibility for the accreditation of the inspection bodies. It is a pretty big concern for that organisation, and perhaps the Minister may like to take a call and tell us how she will address those concerns.

I move, That the question be now put.