Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this
I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. The bill confirms and validates 18 Orders in Council. It must be enacted by 31 December to avoid the subordinate legislation lapsing. The bill was referred to the Regulations Review Committee on 9 November 2006. The committee called for explanations by the seven departments administering the 18 orders. These orders cover rates of annual increase in social security benefits, New Zealand superannuation, and war pensions; orders made under the Customs and Excise Act; orders made under the Tariff Act; and a range of orders made under the Commodity Levies Act. The committee was satisfied with those explanations and presented its report on 27 November, recommending that the bill be passed without amendment. I thank the select committee for its expeditious consideration of this bill, under the excellent chairmanship of Dr Richard Worth—whose reward for this, sadly, was to be demoted in the reshuffle of the National Party.
KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this
I rise to speak to the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) and in speaking to this very interesting—and not particularly controversial, I must say—bill, I will say at the outset that National does support it. By way of background, these types of bills are introduced annually to confirm and/or validate subordinate legislation. Subordinate legislation may need to be confirmed to avoid the effect of what are commonly called sunset clauses, which basically provide that legislation, regulations, and orders in subordinate legislation will be deemed to be revoked, or will expire on a certain date, unless confirmed or validated before that expiry date by Act of this House. This bill therefore confirms the regulations specified in the bill in order to avoid automatic revocation.
As my learned colleague Dr Worth has mentioned in previous years, when he has been given the same wonderful opportunity to speak on Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) bills, “this is not bowel-gripping legislation; it is technical and formal.” It is important, and it does give the House the opportunity to consider the policy that lies behind the regulations or orders being confirmed. We have heard that in this case we are asked to confirm and validate regulations and orders under several Acts, as detailed in Part 2: the Biosecurity Act, Commodity Levies Act, Customs and Excise Act, New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act, Social Security Act, Road User Charges Act, Tariff Act, and War Pensions Act.
Some of the orders being confirmed and validated are under the Commodity Levies Act and relate to nashi Asian pears, navel oranges, asparagus, arable crops, maize—though not GM contaminated maize—and dredge oysters. Although it all may sound a veritable feast, it is important to realise that in these cases the producers—the industries—have been, or should have been, properly consulted and proper voting would have taken place as to the amount of such levies. The levies are usually then payable to the industry organisation to finance various activities to the benefit of that industry.
Some of the orders or regulations merely reflect movements in the consumer price index—for example, superannuation and war pensions. Similarly, some of the orders under the Customs and Excise Act also reflect consumer price index movements, although not all do so. For example, we have the Customs Import Prohibition (Toothfish) Order and Customs Export Prohibition (Toothfish) Order, which merely continue the import and export prohibitions on toothfish—whatever they may be.
Two of the orders covered by this bill impose biosecurity levies, and one increases the rate of road-user charges. I will spend a little bit of time elaborating on the road-user charges issue. Under the Road User Charges Act the rates of road-user charges may be reduced or increased from time to time. Where such an order is made on or before 30 June in any year that order will expire on 31 December of that year, unless it is expressly validated or confirmed by Act of Parliament. Where such an order is made after 1 July in any year that order will expire on 31 December of the following year, unless, similarly, it is expressly validated or confirmed by Act of Parliament. The particular order that we are now validating and confirming came into effect on 1 April this year, and therefore must be validated by the end of this year; hence the bill before the House. This particular road-user charges order increased the rate of charges for certain distance licences and also certain supplementary licences. We all know what road-user charges are used for, or should be used for, and to which vehicles they should apply. What I would like to ask, albeit rhetorically, is what would happen if Parliament did not actually confirm and validate the road-user charges order. Presumably that order would lapse and we would effectively do away with road-user charges completely. Having said that, in any event let us hope that these increased road-user charges may, in some way, result in better roading, which we have not yet seen under the current Government.
These regulations have been scrutinised by the very hard-working and enthusiastic Regulations Review Committee—a select committee that I have had the privilege of being on and one that I do believe every member of Parliament should have a go at being on. It gives a useful insight into the making of regulations and orders, subordinate legislation, delegated legislation, “Henry VIII” clauses, etc. This bill covers a somewhat eclectic range of issues. As I have stated, it confirms the stated orders that would otherwise lapse. It is a technical and formal bill but it is also the opportunity to consider the policy behind the regulations. National supports the bill.