Standards and Conformance Bill

I thank my colleague the Minister of Justice for moving the second reading of this bill on my behalf. It is certainly very pleasing to see the progress of such important legislation, and I thank the Commerce Committee for the work it did on this bill. I also thank the submitters, because there was a significant number of submissions in terms of legislation that was quite narrow in its construct.

Since the time the bill was introduced into the House I have released a discussion document on the review of the standards and conformance infrastructure. I should say that it has been very well received by those who realise just how important standards and conformance are to individual businesses, but, more important, to the economy as a whole. I would say, particularly for businesses in export markets, New Zealand’s standards and conformance infrastructure is extremely important.

This bill itself represents an important first step towards improving New Zealand’s standards and conformance system, and I believe that its key role is the fact that it will clarify the roles of the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council and improve their efficiency and effectiveness. It is important to New Zealand that these institutions maintain their high international reputation.

To help achieve this, the bill is designed to clarify that the Testing Laboratory Registration Council does not have the ability to accredit certification bodies. It confirms that the council does have the ability to accredit inspection bodies. It makes the council’s provision of certification services discretionary rather than mandatory. It clarifies and expands the scope of the Standards Council’s functions to include the preparation of codes of practice, handbooks, specifications, and other material currently produced by international standards development bodies, and it improves the nomination processes for appointments made to the Standards Council.

The bill also contains a number of minor and technical amendments. On that basis I commend what is, in fact, a rather technical bill to the House.

Standards New Zealand was created in 1932, in the wake of the Napier earthquake, as part of establishing a national building code. I put it to the House today that the leaky homes disaster affecting 15,000 homes is on an equal scale of calamity to that earthquake and should trigger not just the tinkering that is in this bill but a major restructuring of Standards New Zealand. Things went wrong in 1988 when the Government, at the height of Rogernomics, removed all State funding for Standards New Zealand, unlike standards authorities in Australia, the UK, Canada, and the US. The implications of that, combined with other State sector reforms, are that Standards New Zealand’s technical committees have become dominated by commercial interests, and the consequence of that for consumers has been a disaster.

This evening I want to expose just how rotten things have become in the timber industry. The mischief began in 1995, when timber industry advocates persuaded Standards New Zealand, against the advice of the Forest Research Institute, to allow untreated kiln-dried timber. Let me make it plain that untreated timber is not the only cause of leaky homes. Other causes, like poor design, sub-standard construction, and inadequate inspection, also played a part. However, the scale and cost of the problems would be only a fraction of what they are had all those homes been constructed of treated timber. The Government made the right decision, despite vehement industry opposition, to require full treatment in 2003. The new standard 3640 required framing timber to be fully treated, and the key words in that standard are that the treatment must fully penetrate the sapwood.

The subsequent attempts and tactics by some in the timber industry, firstly, to get around, secondly to fudge, and now to change the requirement for full timber treatment have me very concerned. The new timber treatment standard was first got around by the now-defunct Building Industry Authority, in 2004, approving a surface-only treatment known as T1.2. That had several major problems. First, the alternative solution mechanism was never intended to override the standard and was intended only as an exceptional circumstance. Second, the product was cunningly marketed as T1.2 and misrepresented as being the same as the H1.2, or fully treated, complying product. Third, the conditions of its use were impractical and not followed. Nor was the testing and trial of that surface-treated product nearly robust enough to replace 50 years of experience with the fully treated boron timber product.

After those concerns were publicly highlighted by scientists, certified builders, building certifiers, building consultants, and myself last year, the product collapsed. The public did not want a product that did not comply with the new standard. The aftermath of that episode is that Dr Wakeling and myself face a $16 million writ each, and that the chief executive officer of the Certified Builders Association was pushed out, after industry pressure over his public statements, which were similar to ours.

Another new product, Tru-Core, was also launched at about the same time. Today it is marketed and widely sold as a product that is compliant with the new timber treatment standard. Tru-Core, unlike T1.2, claimed it complied with the H1.2 standard. Again, it sought to avoid the traditional pressure treatment process by a process involving a spray-on, and then a heating, of the boron. In March I received a copy of a report written by scientist Dr Robin Wakeling, showing that of 120 samples of the Tru-Core product, taken from stores in Whangarei, Rotorua, Palmerston North, Feilding, and Taupō, 88 percent of them failed. I wrote to the Timber Preservation Council, questioning what it intended to do about that deeply concerning report. It said it would do nothing and, further, it refused to disclose to me its test results concerning the compliance of that Tru-Core product, saying, for goodness’ sake, that they were commercially confidential.

I also want to draw to the attention of this House the fact that when test results on the Tru-Core product were first reported by Veritec—and that is a Crown research institute—they showed 100 percent penetration of the timber on all the samples. It was later found, on questioning, that Veritec had found anything but 100 percent penetration of those samples, as required by the standard. In fact, across a 50 millimetre cross-section of a typical timber member, penetration ranged from only 3 millimetres to 9 millimetres, with an average of just 5 millimetres. The explanation by Veritec of why it had reported the results in that way, which was that that was what the industry had requested, raises very serious questions about the integrity of that Crown research institute’s reporting of laboratory test results.

In June the Building Industry Federation’s chief executive sought a meeting with me, because the federation had seen the Wakeling report on Tru-Core timber. He advised me that the federation had sighted a further report from another scientist, Neil Mora, an employee of AgriQuality, that confirmed Dr Wakeling’s concerns. He agreed to arrange a meeting between Mr Mora and myself. A week later the American company behind Tru-Core, Kop-Coat, had Russell McVeagh serve another set of writs on Dr Robin Wakeling personally for doing no more than testing the product for compliance with the standard and informing relevant bodies of the concern. Not surprisingly, Mr Mora, the AgriQuality scientist who had similar test results to Dr Wakeling’s, has subsequently decided not to allow his test results to be available because he, too, feared receiving writs for millions of dollars. It is that sort of heavy-handed silencing of scientists and stonewalling, citing commercial sensitivity, that leaves me feeling uneasy about whether houses today are being built of treated timber of sufficient quality to last.

A further dimension to the issue is the bid by Kop-Coat, the owners of the Tru-Core product, to water down the timber treatment standard and allow timber that is surface-treated with boron for hazard class 3 uses. On 11 May of this year the technical committee of Standards New Zealand had a vote on that matter. Two men, Neil Mora and Paul Oliver, voted against the change, which meant that it failed. In June, those two members were sacked, as a consequence of industry pressure. Standards New Zealand then, by a unanimous vote, agreed on 18 August to that amendment to water down the standard, making a complete mockery of the standards process.

In a surprising move, the department issued a press release on 21 August, distancing itself from the new standard and stating it was not satisfied that the product met the requirements of the building code. I suspect that the department, too, feels distinctly uncomfortable about that process. The Certified Builders Association, rightly, issued a press release last week, stating it was “infuriated” at the situation whereby the Department of Building and Housing and Standards New Zealand had different views on whether the surface-treated timber was OK. The Minister of Commerce, Lianne Dalziel, has stated that changes in the standard would be made only by consensus or, on rare occasions, by an 80 percent vote. That has not occurred in respect of this amendment. At a time of huge sensitivity over timber treatment, we have two Government agencies saying different things. The message to homeowners and builders, 4 years after the whole issue of rotting homes broke, is that we still do not have our act together as to what is required with regard to timber treatment.

To summarise, a new timber treatment standard was adopted in 2003 and we have had repeated efforts to get around it, to fudge it, and now to water it down. We have had multimillion-dollar writs flying, scientists who are fearful of speaking freely, standards committee members being fired because they opposed lesser standards, Crown research institutes producing grossly misleading laboratory test results, and Standards New Zealand and the Department of Building and Housing at odds over what is required.

I put to this House that our building industry deserves better than that mess. Questions need to be answered. A fresh, new look needs to be taken at our building standards—how they are set, who funds them, and how they are enforced. That is the key to regaining public confidence in the $13 billion a year building industry. This bill will not do. Far more substantive reform of Standards New Zealand is required.

I seek leave to table a number of documents that I referred to in my speech. The first is a report on the testing of 120 samples of the Tru-Core timber product that was produced by Dr Robin Wakeling and submitted to the Timber Preservation Council.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The second set of documents are both my letter to the Timber Preservation Council about that report and the council’s response, refusing to release its test results.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The third document I seek leave to table is the report from Veritec, which is a subsidiary of Scion, formerly the Forest Research Institute, which shows quite misleading test results on those timber samples.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

The report of the Commerce Committee stated that the key “objective of the bill is to ensure that international and domestic confidence is maintained in the standards and conformance infrastructure.” The Government and the institution of Parliament form part of New Zealand’s infrastructure, so I want to take time this evening to examine the standards this Government has set itself and its conformance with them. The first standard was set in 1999 in the Speech from the Throne, when Helen Clark stated that her Government would “restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process”. So how has the Government shaped up in the standard of the electoral process? “Not achieved” or “failed miserably” would be a kind interpretation. “Stole $882,000 from the public purse” would be a more accurate description. “Lowered standards to an all-time low”—

Maryan Street: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you assist me as to whether this speech is in any way related to the legislation before the House? If it is, how so? If it is not, should it be continuing?

BRIAN CONNELL: I was quoting specifically from the commentary on the bill, where it states that standards and conformance are about the infrastructure of New Zealand. I am talking directly to that point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that his speech must be relevant to this bill. It is not a general standards debate, but relevant to this bill.

BRIAN CONNELL: Well, I was quoting directly from the bill when I raised that point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have made the ruling.

BRIAN CONNELL: Before I was interrupted unnecessarily, I was saying that this Government has lowered the standard to an all-time low, and that is how this standard will be scored in my scorecard, and in that of the public of New Zealand. Now Government members want to do something even more cynical. Rather than conform to the standard, they want to change it by retrospective legislation. So if that was a baddy, let us see how the Government goes against the standard on the integrity of Parliament. Members in the last Parliament remember a Minister called John Tamihere, who was convicted of fraud. He forgot to pay tax on a golden handshake—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated; I am on my feet. When I point to the bill, I want the member to speak to the bill. Thank you.

BRIAN CONNELL: I am happy to speak to the bill; I am speaking to the bill on the part that states “integrity of Parliament”. I am comparing the Government’s performance against that standard. The police had a prima facie case against David Benson-Pope—members might recall that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that this bill is not concerned with electoral standards or parliamentary standards. It deals with functions of the Standards Council, which has no responsibility for elections or parliamentary standards. They are two different issues, and I would ask the member to come to the bill.

BRIAN CONNELL: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am speaking directly to this bill, because the commentary specifically states that one of its objectives is to deal with the infrastructure of New Zealand. The integrity of this Parliament is a key component of that infrastructure, and I think I am entirely at liberty to speak about it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has been here for some time now. He is an experienced member, and he knows better. This is his first yellow card.

BRIAN CONNELL: Thank you for your direction, Mr Assistant Speaker. I refer the House to clause 7(5), which allows for the Minister to direct the Standards Council to perform any function that the Minister sees fit. I am sure you cannot yellow card me, Mr Assistant Speaker, for raising concerns about having a member of the Government with that type of unfettered power, particularly when that Government has a record of lowering standards in this House. That is something that is a legitimate debating point.

But I will move on to something else that concerns me and my party deeply. My party will not be supporting this bill, for a number of reasons. I have already articulated some of those reasons, and I know that Government members do not like the truth being rammed home to them, but it is the truth nevertheless. What concerns my party most is the lack of rigour around compliance analysis in this bill. The business compliance cost statement accompanying this bill lacks detail. Lianne Dalziel, the member who introduced this bill, said in the House a few days ago that she is a believer in full disclosure. Well, it is a pity she did not make that comment to David Parker or Taito Phillip Field at some stage. When she drafts the regulations, she should give those members a hand-delivered copy.

What bothers me most about the analysis is that it is simply woeful. The compliance statement in the bill states: “The implications of this are difficult to assess.” We have a Minister who was on her feet in this House saying she believes in full disclosure of compliance costs, yet she tells us that the compliance costs are difficult to assess. The statement continues: “If other countries do not have confidence in the New Zealand system for the accreditation of certification bodies, New Zealand exports in a range of sectors, including the food, building, financial services, tourism, and education sectors, could be negatively affected.” That is how important it is, but we are told in the compliance report that the implications of this bill are just too difficult to assess. That level of analysis is astounding.

Maryan Street: It’s streets ahead of yours!

BRIAN CONNELL: It is astounding because an economics student, even one as poor as the member who is blabbing her mouth off at the moment, would know better than to put into a bill the statement that compliance costs are just too hard to assess. Even the most fundamental matters of this bill, such as the increase in fees that the two certification bodies will face following the transfer of powers from International Accreditation New Zealand to the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand, are not identified. Why are those things happening if it cannot even be identified what they are? Why is an increase even necessary? Is it the cumulative effect of the hidden compliance cost in a bill of a technical nature, just like this one that hit out at small businesses? Compliance costs in this country are driving businesses to the wall. When the Minister responsible for this bill has an opportunity to demonstrate that she is on top of the bill—and when she has a statement and a commentary on the bill that says it is critical to maintaining confidence in New Zealand’s infrastructure—she says, despite her rhetoric to the contrary, that the compliance costs are too hard to assess.

In a speech to the Business Roundtable, Lianne Dalziel promised that regulatory impacts analysis would become fully integrated into the policy development process, and that means clearly identifying the objectives. Well, has that been done in this bill? No. Does this bill consider any existing regulatory frameworks, does it set out options, making a risk and opportunity check, and always asking whether the response is proportionate? Well, it is all very fine rhetoric, is it not, but when push comes to shove the Minister’s response has been woeful. Not one member of the Government who has taken a call on this bill will be able to contradict me, because the Labour members on the select committee know I am correct.

There is something else that bothers us. I am looking again at the commentary on this bill under the heading “Committee consideration”. The commentary states: “Issues raised by submitters related to compliance costs,”—I have covered that—“appointments to the Standards Council, clarity of accreditation and certification roles, and the transitional provisions. We are satisfied that the bill addresses these issues, and do not recommend any amendments.” That is simply not true. The House cannot accept that, when the National Party has a minority report in the commentary that specifically states that it does not agree and is not satisfied that the compliance costs of this bill have been satisfactorily addressed.

Hon Rick Barker: Get a haircut and get a real job!

BRIAN CONNELL: Sober up, Minister.

Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will hear no point of order from you, thank you. Sit down, please.

BRIAN CONNELL: Exactly—if the member does not like it, he should not give it. [Interruption] The member is in his seat now, and we are grateful for that. What we need him to do now is zip his mouth up.

I will conclude by saying that the National Party simply cannot support legislation that has not gone through a due process of compliance analysis. This bill falls woefully short of that standard—it does not matter which way one does the analysis.

Maryan Street: That is absolutely pathetic—just pathetic. Talk to your own colleagues.

BRIAN CONNELL: Mr Deputy Speaker, are you going to allow that type of personal attack? I am a sensitive new-age guy; I am not sure I can handle it. [Interruption] Judging by the way the member walks in here, I can tell he has obviously been in a place where he should not have been for a long, long time. While he is here he makes very personal comments, and you are letting it go by. I am deeply offended, Mr Deputy Speaker—deeply offended.

On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the second reading of the Standards and Conformance Bill. I must say that it is a real pleasure to follow a member like Brian Connell. He is erudite and intelligent—but in this case he is totally wrong.

It is very important in today’s world to be aware of the necessity to have complete confidence in all of the products we purchase, particularly those we export. One way to do that is to ensure we have product conformity—products aligned to an internationally recognised standard. It is only by a product having conformance to an internationally recognised standard that we can be assured of the product’s consistency. Of course, all of our overseas customers increasingly want this, so it is important to ensure that confidence is also maintained in the standards and conformance infrastructure. We need to have one standard if we are going to have a standard at all.

It is really pleasing to see that the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand will continue to have the role of registering certification bodies here in New Zealand. We need to set standards that cannot afford to be compromised. Prior to coming to Parliament I was closely involved in ensuring that international standard ISO 9002 standards were maintained in my workplace—those standards were administered in those days by Telarc—so I am very aware of the importance of compliance in one’s work. Any business that wants international accreditation for its products is very aware of the compliance costs for that. I must say that these costs are very often a part of doing business overseas and locally, and they are costs that one must know totally all about before entering into the compliance area.

As the Minister explained, the bill aligns the functions of the Testing Laboratory Registration Council, and the Standards Council, with international standards in conformance, norms, and practices. Because of the importance of our standards and conformance infrastructure to New Zealand’s trade, health, safety, and environmental objectives, it is absolutely essential that we get the process right. As these international norms and practices have evolved over time, our legal framework has basically not kept pace. This bill brings us up to speed.

In particular, international practice requires that only one body in any country has the function of registering certification bodies. In essence, we have ended up with two—the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand, which is a joint trans-Tasman body with genuine international standards, being a member of the International Accreditation Forum, and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council, which still has this function as a result of the 1972 legislation. This bill removes the function of the Testing Laboratory Registration Council for registering certification bodies. It gives that body the function of registering various types of conformity assessment bodies, except for certification.

The Commerce Committee, I read, received seven submissions and heard only three submitters. Issues raised included compliance costs, appointments to the Standards Council, clarity of accreditation, certificate roles, and transitional provisions. New Zealand First notes that the report states that the committee is satisfied the bill addresses these issues, and the committee has not recommended any amendments.

One issue is of concern to New Zealand First, and that is the point expressed in National’s minority report. New Zealand First has always resisted provisions and objectives to promote social responsibility. We are very aware that this type of provision is difficult, if not totally impossible, to implement and then to audit against—hence our policy and our legislation around the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. So New Zealand First will be scrutinising the provisions to increase the Standards Council’s objectives to promote sound responsibility. We support the bill and look forward to seeing it go through its various stages.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. As this bill has moved up the Order Paper, a release issued from the Australian Government’s Department of Health and Ageing described the commitment of both Governments to the establishment of the Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Authority. Then last week the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne went to Sydney and Canberra, I am told, to discuss the development of a national medicine strategy for New Zealand—a New Zealand strategy, in Australia. This new bill—third strike lucky—is yet another attempt at a trans-Tasman relationship. But for the Māori Party it is third strike out.

As with many bills of this nature, this bill initially appears to be merely a technicality. It amends the Standards Act and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act to improve the efficiency of the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council, or Telarc. It also transfers authority to register certification bodies in New Zealand from Telarc to the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. Well, that all sounds very good. The Māori Party, as the independent Māori voice of this Parliament, is absolutely committed to standards being protected, maintained, reviewed, and improved. So the proposals to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of councils are welcomed.

But many questions arise. The bill guarantees that a standard is set and met, but there is no guarantee of a quality focus. Technically, conformance to standards does not in itself guarantee a quality standard or improvement. But the bigger question that has been exercising our minds is the context of the Government’s programme of strengthening trade between New Zealand and Australia. This is a major area of debate that we as a nation need to be having. What will the nature of the relationship between the two jurisdictions be? What capacity will our Government here in Aotearoa have to retain our own independent processes of review of our domestic standards and protocols?

A number of the submissions to the Commerce Committee, as I understand it, raised the irony of the bill going through before the Ministry of Economic Development’s review of New Zealand’s own standards and conformance structure is completed. Indeed, a number of the submitters, including the Construction Industry Council, are of the view that given that nothing in the bill requires urgent attention, it would have been prudent to wait until the recommendations from the ministry’s review were known before proceeding.

But there is another element, of course, to the trans-Tasman relationship that the Māori Party wishes to raise in this debate, and that is the aspect of consultation with indigenous peoples to achieve social responsibility, to agree to specific standards, and to guarantee the rights of tangata whenua as enshrined in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. There is a very real school of thought that suggests that the ceding of sovereignty to a trans-Tasman body not only limits the capacity of the New Zealand Government but also potentially enables the Government to abdicate its obligations to tangata whenua under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. And why would the Australians need to include any references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi when this Government is supporting the removal of any references to it from legislation here in Aotearoa?

The other issue that is associated with the trans-Tasman alliance is its possible impact on current negotiations between Māori and the Crown relating to the use of native flora and fauna and their traditional applications. Hearings of the Wai 262 intellectual property flora and fauna claim are currently scheduled before the Waitangi Tribunal. As this House will be aware, the Wai 262 inquiry has resumed in the Waitangi Tribunal under the chairmanship of Chief Judge Joe Williams. Judge Williams has set a timetable to complete the hearings by the end of March 2007. The inquiry will consider big issues for Māori—issues such as whether the Crown has an obligation to protect Māori knowledge and indigenous flora and fauna. Significantly for this bill, it will also consider whether New Zealand’s obligations under any international agreements adversely affect New Zealand’s ability to protect Māori knowledge and indigenous flora and fauna. The Māori Party has reviewed some of the submissions to that body, including that from Nga Ringa Whakahaere. They are increasingly concerned that the Crown and transnational entities are presuming to own, regulate, and use aspects of Māori cultural and intellectual property, and the native flora and fauna species of tangata whenua.

When we come to this Standards and Conformance Bill we have to ask the question whether the Government has consulted with its Treaty partner before signing trans-Tasman agreements. We ask the House today—and we will be interested to hear the Minister speak about it—whether tangata whenua have been, or indeed will be, specifically consulted. Tangata whenua, as the partner of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, must be engaged in decisions about whether to sign trans-Tasman agreements. Making sense of the Treaty in the context of this bill’s proposals would mean that tangata whenua would be consulted in developing and recommending specifications to minimise environmental risks and promote social responsibility, and in developing standards by which we can properly measure genuine progress. When we took a call on this bill in the first reading, we supported the bill going to the select committee in order to address issues of national sovereignty and Treaty obligations to consult. The parliamentary record reveals that these issues were not addressed or raised in any way.

Summing up, then, a transfer of authority lessens our sovereign ability within Aotearoa to determine our own domestic standards and conformance. There are other wider and more important issues facing standards development in our jurisdiction than those dealt with in the bill, and consideration of the bill should not be undertaken in isolation from these issues—issues such as Wai 262 and the Ministry of Economic Development review.

Two weeks’ ago, after a closely fought 34 to 27 win at Eden Park in Auckland, the All Blacks clinched the Tri-Nations for another year and completed the clean sweep over their trans-Tasman rivals. The match was full of drama and tension. If members recall, the Wallabies dominated the lead for most of the match, until our guys got going, and then it was all on. Richie McCaw was spear tackled by Lote Tuqiri in the 45th minute, in an ugly incident that commentators thought should have led to Tuqiri being sin-binned. Rocky Elsom looked to have knocked-on the ball but the try was awarded by the television match official. Indeed, from my position as an armchair authority, I might have been heard to mutter: “Where was the one standard for all?”.

It is an issue that we cannot abdicate in any trans-Tasman relationship. Will aligning our functions with those across the Ditch mean a lowering of our current New Zealand standards? How can we assess and improve the overall quality of standards if we are not equal players? It is in light of these curly issues that the Māori Party will oppose the bill’s second reading. Kia ora tātou.

The Standards and Conformance Bill is very important legislation. But, as with so many of the supposed initiatives of the Labour-led Government, it falls short of the mark. It seems there is a fundamental difficulty in their ranks and it emerges every day in the House. We heard my colleague and friend the Hon Nick Smith speak on the vacillations of certain players in the timber industry, where truth itself seems to have been compromised and anyone who purports to present it afresh is put under incredible pressure not to speak out.

One of the advantages of entering Parliament following a fair stretch of a career in business and commerce is that one does not carry too many illusions over the need for authoritative standards to be set for the public’s protection. This bill falls short of the mark in trying to do this. If one also has experience in dealing with the standards—or lack of them—in other jurisdictions in overseas countries, then one can see the experienced level of protection that is required to protect the innocent, the unassuming, and the trusting. The bill falls short of the mark in doing this.

I never expected to hear in this House revelations of such an appalling lack of standards in the building industry as detailed by Dr Smith today. The reality is that ordinary people without an in-depth knowledge of building materials and that which constitutes effective remedies for rot—people like myself—do not have the capacity, time, inclination, or knowledge to look beyond the claims made for a product on the manufacturer’s label. But it is clear we are now living in a new era—an era where things have been changed and socially structured to meet the ideological requirements of the present Labour Government. Instead of being able to depend on things as we used to, “buyer beware” has suddenly taken on a whole new meaning. Buyer beware—beware not only of faulty products but beware of not being able to depend on the standards that have been set. The bill falls short of the mark in correcting this.

We have heard that the leaky home disaster—affecting 15,000 homes—is a calamity equal in scale to the Napier earthquake. Standards New Zealand was created as a consequence of the earthquake. Surely the adjustments in this bill before us now should seek to do more than tinker with the standards. But are the members on the Government side of the House open to bringing about real change and acknowledging the true state of things? I guess, in our experience, no. In the leaky homes business, I remember the Minister at the time doing very little in public to even acknowledge there was even a problem. Everybody else who could watch television news, read a paper, or speak to builders seemed to know there was a problem, but I recall that at the time, Mr Hawkins, explained he had not been told by the industry that there was a problem. Everybody else knew, but he had not been told through official channels and therefore he felt there was not a problem.

I was put in mind of this situation more recently in listening to the Hon David Cunliffe, Minister of Immigration, addressing questions regarding the Taito Phillip Field affair from Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith about the transmission of information from the Immigration Service through to the Associate Minister of Immigration at the time, the Hon Damien O’Connor. In this case we have not quite been told that Mr O’Connor did not receive the information, but we sure as hang have not been told that he did receive the information. So I guess the question is: which was it—did he or did he not? I find it deplorable that a member of the House—regardless of which party—can be left in a position by his colleagues to the extent that the House does not know the level of information he received or did not receive. This uncertainty or paucity of standards leaves individual members at risk of suggestions that they were complicit in the whole scheme—the grubby sequence of events. Again, this is an example of this present Government failing to come up to the mark.

Standards are what we are ultimately judged by—not spin or subterfuge, and not by addressing questions instead of answering them. I like to think I would be the last to expect of others those standards that I would not be prepared to adopt myself. Therein lies the veracity of the National Party calling for the Government to behave in a way that avoids any suggestion that it may be pursuing corrupt practices either in the Taito Phillip Field affair, or in the question of election overexpenditure using taxpayer funds.

If I was a young person with a scant experience of life beyond Parliament then perhaps I may be a little easier to convince of the transparency of the Labour response to situations that embarrass them. The reality is that after serving Her Majesty in a couple of armies and having a career in the New Zealand Dairy Board as an export trader operating throughout the South Pacific, I am not inclined to accept such bland explanations as those currently on offer from Labour. Labour members must think all of us on this side of the House came floating down the Hutt River on a water biscuit if they really expect us to believe their rhetoric on the issue of Taito Phillip Field’s activities, let alone the use of taxpayer funds in the pledge card business.

But there are two other aspects about the standards being reflected by this Government towards its own misdemeanours. The first is the real horror that they believe their own rhetoric. The second is that they expect the public of New Zealand to swallow it too. I return to speak specifically to the bill before us, noting as I do so that it calls for the addition of the terms “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility”. Sitting in the Commerce Committee, I have not heard from members with anything like a satisfactory explanation for what the implications of adding these terms will be.

Similarly, the business compliance costs statement accompanying this bill lacks detail despite the shrill protestations and giggles from Minister Dalziel that they are committed to reducing compliance costs. Well, the Minister can be as shrill as she chooses, but the talk in the market place is that the punters are not holding their breaths. The statement on compliance costs does not qualify the increase in fees that the two certification bodies will face following a transfer of power from International Accreditation New Zealand to the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand or even why an increase is necessary.

I seek the indulgence of the other side of the House—

Steve Chadwick: This is dreadful.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: The member is quite right—this is dreadful. I seek the indulgence of the other side of the House to actually debate some of the issues. I recognise that would be difficult for them; I have heard very little by way of debate coming from that side in the year that I have been part of the House. It would be good if they did decide to debate and to give an explanation of the terms “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility”. They have failed to come to the mark. All we hear is oft repeated statements in a sort of endless and mindless cant, not showing thought, not showing insight, just plugging the gaps and papering the cracks. The present Government should be aware that promoting social responsibility is part of the brief of us all and should be shared like the warmth of a fire. It is not something that should be put in legislation to be open to unspecified interpretation by Ministers at their whim.

To conclude, this bill falls short of what is required. It will not do. A far more substantive form is required. It needs to be able to address the matters that were raised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It should reflect the need for standards that was recognised and initiated in 1932, following the Napier earthquake. It needs to be a leading piece of legislation that governs the standards in those areas that it is specifically designed to deal with, and it needs to reach beyond by way of example. The present Government needs to consider the way it behaves in presenting to the public.

I would be less concerned if the Government were to be the only recipient of fall-out from its truth-avoiding explanations, but the reality is none of us in this House can effectively insulate ourselves from one another’s parties, so we are separately and jointly judged by the public we represent. The lack of standards that the present Labour Government is now associated with is causing a stain on the floor of the House. That stain will spread not just throughout New Zealand but will start to affect our reputation overseas, as honest brokers to deal with. That does not augur well for any of us. We do not want to be a country that comes up short of the mark in standards.