Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) Link to this
I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a second and a third time. The bill confirms and validates 16 Orders in Council made under 10 Acts. The bill must be enacted before 31 December this year in order to prevent the subordinate legislation from lapsing.
Of the 16 orders confirmed by the bill, I would like to briefly focus on two in particular. These apply to movements in the consumer price index to the rates of social security benefits, New Zealand superannuation, and war pensions. The legislation that governs superannuation specifies a 65 to 72.5 percent band within which payments can be made. One of the two orders also made an additional increase to the rate of New Zealand superannuation, so that the net amount payable to a couple is 66 percent of the net average wage. In practice, this has meant that more than half a million older New Zealanders have been receiving $26 a fortnight if a single pensioner or $42 a fortnight if a couple, from 1 April this year. This reflects the commitment that Labour made in its confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First, and I recognise New Zealand First for its support in that regard.
It is good to see that this bill looks set to receive the overwhelming support and confirmation of this House. The bill was introduced by the Leader of the House on 8 October this year, and was referred to the Regulations Review Committee on 11 October. The committee rightly asked the departments responsible for administering the legislation to explain why confirmation or validation of the orders was warranted. The committee was satisfied with the responses it received, and presented its report 2 weeks ago on 7 November, recommending that the bill be passed without amendment. I thank the Regulations Review Committee for its consideration of this bill and for the efficient work it undertook. I particularly recognise the chair of that committee, Dr Richard Worth. I commend this bill to the House for its second and third readings.
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) Link to this
It is right and proper that the House be detained for a period while it considers the significance of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). As the previous speaker has said, National supports this legislation.
Generally, of course, Parliament does not favour omnibus bills, but some specific exceptions within the body of the Standing Orders contemplate that there will be some classes of cases where that indication will be departed from. Standing Order 263 deals with this issue, and it provides that there may be omnibus bills in the nature of confirming or validating actions that are “otherwise illegal” or that “validate and confirm regulations:”. It is the case also that some statutes provide for the making of regulations that will cease to have effect after a fixed period of time, unless they are validated or confirmed by an Act of Parliament passed within that time. If you like, that is a form of statutory sunset clause, whose effect can be avoided by Parliament confirming the regulations and giving them continuing force.
There is a subtlety in all of this: there is a distinction to be drawn between validation and confirmation. Validating a regulation, as opposed to merely confirming it, potentially does more than to avoid the lapse of the regulation under a sunset clause. It can also cure a defect in the regulation, or in the manner in which the regulation was made, that would otherwise have led to the regulation being regarded as invalid. I have said there is a subtlety. It is a subtlety that parliamentary counsel pick up, following accepted practice. If we look at Part 1 of this bill, we see that clause 4, “Validations to prevent expiry do not cure invalidity, etc” specifically states: “In the light of their purpose, the validations effected by” these various provisions “do not—(a) express an intention to give legislative force to the provisions of the enactments validated; or (b) apply to any reason for invalidating any of those enactments; or (c) override any presumption that would otherwise apply to any of those enactments.”
When we look at the particular confirmations and validations, we see that some measures are to be confirmed and others are to be validated and confirmed. As an example of the first, the regulations under the Animal Products Act 1999 are to be confirmed. Other members will speak about that. An example of a validation and confirmation would be the order under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001.
I will say something more about the legal position here. Each year, legislation is introduced to confirm regulations that would otherwise lapse. Confirmation is not an opportunity to explore issues of validity; rather, it is the House’s opportunity to consider the policy that lies behind the regulations to be confirmed. So it is not an exercise confined to examining regulations for conflict with delegated legislation principles. It might well be the case that specific orders are referred to subject select committees, but here, because of the significant number of provisions that are the subject of confirmation and/or validation, they went to the Regulations Review Committee—which has, as members know, a general responsibility for delegated legislation—and were dealt with by that committee, not by a subject select committee.
Before I sit down, I will give members just two examples of what happens here—
Hon Clayton CosgroveOne of the younger Ministers on the other side of the House has asked for more than two illustrations. I am certainly happy to oblige him with multiple illustrations, if that is truly required. But it is probably not, and other speakers will pick up other illustrations founded on what I say. I will take just one, which will be of particular interest to that young Minister: the Tariff (Concession) Amendment Order 2007. As members may be aware, that order amended Part II of the Tariff of New Zealand, which is the first schedule to the Tariff Act 1988, by altering the tariff concession reference number 80, which allows for duty-free alcohol imported by passengers arriving in New Zealand.
It is something close to the member’s heart. His predilection for alcohol is well known and is the subject of comment both in this House and outside it. But because that order was made under section 9 of the Tariff Act it was necessary, in terms of section 11 of that Act, for it to be validated and confirmed by an Act of Parliament if it was not to expire. “So what?”, the Minister may ask. Well, the “so what” answer is this: if the order is not confirmed it will lapse, and the duty-free concession allowance of three 1,125 millilitre bottles of spirit will revert to the previous concession allowance of one 1,125 millilitre bottle of spirits. That was the position that existed prior to 1 September 2007. So the New Zealand Customs Service, that hard-working group of civil servants, would then be required to collect the duty payable on the additional two bottles that previously qualified for duty-free entry under the de minimis duty collection provision of the customs legislation. As we would all know and recognise, that would create administrative difficulties and uncertainty for travellers, duty-free retailers, and customers.
I will just take another example, which relates to the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order of 2007. That order increased the payment rates of most social security benefits by the percentage increase in the consumer price index for the year ended December 2006. Section 61H(3) of the Social Security Act provides that an Order in Council made in terms of that legislation expires 12 months after it is laid before the House under the Regulations (Disallowance) Act, unless it is validated and confirmed. So it is an example of validation and confirmation by an Act of Parliament passed before that date. In this case the order was laid before the House on 5 March 2007, and if the order is not validated and confirmed before 5 March 2008, it will expire, will it not? So the payment rates of benefits and of New Zealand superannuation would revert on that date to the rates that applied on 31 March 2007. That would cause hardship and inconvenience to the people who are dependent on those benefits. It would cause administration difficulty for the ministry, as it would need to notify beneficiaries and superannuitants and explain that the rates of their benefits would reduce, and the ministry would have to field inquiries and complaints on that issue.
The reason it is so important that the orders that are currently detaining the House be passed in this legislation is so that a regime will be in place that will not produce inequity and unfairness. But there is a wider issue, but perhaps I will deal with that very particular issue in a later call.
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) Link to this
We are fortunate to have someone of the calibre of Dr Richard Worth, who chairs the Regulations Review Committee. We have seen today how he has been able to crystallise and articulate the essence of such important legislation—legislation that to most minds is of a technical nature and does not really inspire many to be part of this debate. But it is important to realise that regulations and orders can expire and that they need to be rolled over. Even if we do not have an interest specifically in the regulation before us, we can look behind at the policy that drives these sorts of regulations. Those who have a mind to do so will see what the policy decisions are that have promulgated the regulations we have before us. This Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) is important legislation, and there is much to take in. I said that this is a technical bill, but we are asked this afternoon to allow departments, through the clauses in the bill, to be able to operate and carry on their functions. Subordinate legislation has a time frame on it that is going to expire—
Well, it is a great committee we have. The Regulations Review Committee not only has Dr Worth as its chair but has on it my esteemed colleague here, Eric Roy, who is the authority on fishing. He will be able to tell us what the fisheries legislation means. One of the provisions we are asked to confirm and validate this afternoon specifically talks about fishing. I know that my colleague Eric Roy will be able to do that, as an expert in that area. Subordinate legislation needs to be confirmed and, in some cases, validated to avail the effect of what are commonly called sunset clauses, where regulations and orders in subordinate legislation will be deemed to be revoked and will expire on a certain date.
That is important to realise, and that is why we are here today. It is an annual event. I say to the Minister that I have spoken on this before—it is an annual event.
Oh, it is not the same speech as last time, because we are dealing with different clauses this time. These clauses will expire on a date, and it is important that they are confirmed and validated by an Act before this Parliament. That is the reason we are here this afternoon. The regulations and orders that we will be validating are in Part 2 of the bill. I will go through those in a minute.
Well, there are nine clauses here in Part 2, where the regulations and orders are specified in the bill, and to avoid revocation we must today confirm and, in some cases, validate those. As I said, this is a technical bill, so it does not have the panache or the excitement of many, but it is certainly an important bill.
I draw the attention of members to the contents page of the bill. This bill has in it the title and commencement—I do not think we in National will be commenting on those. Part 1 of the bill talks about the “General and technical provisions”, and includes the purpose clause. Part 2 contains the confirmations and validations that are so important. There is the Animal Products Act 1999, the Commodity Levies Act 1990, the Customs and Excise Act 1996, and the Fisheries Act 1996, which I am sure my colleague Eric Roy will want to make comment on. Our spokesman on fishing, Phil Heatley, who is standing up, will probably want to make a valuable contribution on this also. There is the Gambling Act 2003, which I will be speaking on. There is the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, and the Social Security Act 1964. There is the Road User Charges Act 1977, the Tariff Act 1988, and the War Pensions Act 1954, which my colleague Dr Worth spoke about.
I draw the attention of members first to clause 11 of this bill, which relates to the Gambling Act 2003. The regulations were made under section 319 of the Gambling Act 2003. That section provides that if regulations requiring gambling operators to pay a levy are made on or before 30 June in any year, the regulations would expire on 30 June of the following year, unless they are specifically confirmed by an Act of Parliament passed during the year. That is the reason we are here today—so that a levy can be struck. Since 1996 successive Governments have considered it appropriate that the major gambling operators should contribute to the cost of addressing the harm caused by their products. Section 317 of the Act states that the Government may allocate responsibility for developing and delivering an integrated problem gambling strategy to a department. This responsibility was allocated to the Ministry of Health, which took over the role of the Problem Gambling Committee of New Zealand from 1 July 2004.
Section 319 of the Act also provides that regulations may be made requiring gambling operators to pay a levy to recover the cost of developing, managing, and delivering an integrated problem-gambling strategy. This strategy will be funded from an appropriation to the ministry, and the Crown will recoup this funding from the levy. The levy, which is calculated using a formula supplied in the Act, provides a mechanism for apportioning the cost of the strategy between the main gambling subsectors—that is, non-casino gaming machines, casinos, the New Zealand Racing Board, and the New Zealand Lotteries Commission.
This formula is always subject to debate. I spent much time working on it back in 2003, because it is a formula that I think does not have fairness and equity. I will not talk about that today, because, of course, that is a policy decision. We are not talking about policy today; we are talking about the confirmation and validation of a levy so it can carry on. So I will not talk about the process, which is a policy decision of the Government—I will not get into that debate.
This levy that I have talked about, the problem-gambling levy, is fixed for a term of 3 years. Three years has been established as the maximum period for which the levy can be made, to coincide with the conclusion of the 3-year funding round. It may be that during that period of time there are overs and unders—that the levy that has been collected has not met the budget that has been required—so there is a provision in section 318 of the Gambling Act that provides that when the next levy is going to be made under the formula, those unders and overs can then be apportioned out. That is how that process will work.
In my remaining minutes I want to talk about the indexing of the war pensions and associated allowances. This is done annually, and it takes into account the percentage increase in the consumer price index over the previous calendar year. It is important for those who receive war pensions that this provision is there. Otherwise, if it were to lapse, it would be a huge problem, and it would contravene Government policy—here I am actually talking about Government policy—and there may be the need, if payments have been made, for the department to ask for money back. We do not want that to happen. These people who are eligible for war pensions need to have certainty and security. One of the provisions that we are talking about here—clause 15 in the bill—validates and confirms an order in the War Pensions Act 1954. It is important that we are able to roll that over and to confirm and to validate the War Pensions (Rates of Pensions, Lump Sum Payments, and Allowances) Order 2007.
If the increase in the rates of war pensions, lump-sum payments, and allowances are not confirmed, the department that is responsible for this will be asking for money back and trying to retrieve those overpayments—and that goes back to 1 April 2007. Our committee spent much time on this. It is an important committee. We have scrutinised and analysed these clauses. National is happy to support this bill before the House.
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) Link to this
Seldom in the annals of the history of this House do we have something before us as riveting and important as the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). This matter has been handled by the Regulations Review Committee. Our chairman, Dr Worth, gave a very full report on our activities, and I am sure the House was impressed at the standard and qualities of the chair of that committee.
This bill is actually important. Members may think I am speaking with my tongue in cheek, but the Regulations Review Committee’s examination of this subordinate legislation is significantly important. Let me explain why. Any members who care to canvass or talk to businesses or organisations in their community hear the constant cry of the excessive cost of compliance. Here today we are validating the ability to charge levies and fees, and that argument that we are constantly confronted with—the cost of compliance, the cost of doing business—is a significant element of that. So we need to take this matter seriously.
It is interesting that the Regulations Review Committee has had some changeover in personnel. There has been some movement, shall we say, in the Labour ranks; certain people have moved off this much esteemed committee, to be replaced by others. I am a little disappointed that the members of the committee from the other side of the House are reluctant to take a call today to talk about the very important issues that have come up in this subordinate legislation bill.
You see, it really fits into delegated responsibility. I think it is important that members are aware that it would be highly impractical if, every time a fee were struck or a levy set, a whole bill came before the House, went to a select committee, and came back here. So these issues are grouped, and, as other members speaking on this bill have said, we are validating about a dozen different provisions on this occasion. It is important that we have that delegated responsibility and that we can deal with these issues in a group.
But I need to say that one of the concerns of the Regulations Review Committee is that there are more delegated responsibilities out there than there are statutes. One of the things we are currently doing is to review the pertinence and relevance of all of those delegated responsibilities. There are some out there that do not have sunset clauses, so they just carry on existing. Today we are dealing with the ones that will fall off the perch and will not continue to exist, unless we actually validate them.
Part 1 sets out the processes by which the decisions are made. That is quite clear.
I can see that that Minister is also concerned that members from his team are not explaining these relevant and pertinent bits to the House at large. Part 2 contains nine different pieces of legislation that we are validating. The first one, in clause 7, is the Animal Products Act 1999. A fee structure is set, so that the Animal Products Act can operate. Not only are we validating the collection of these fees but also we are setting in place a process by which we can have some confidence that animal products are safe and adequate to use in a very important part of New Zealand’s industry, the agricultural industry.
I should talk for just a little bit about the Commodity Levies Act, which covers the way in which—
R Doug WoolertonI can see that Mr Woolerton is very interested in this. The Commodity Levies Act sets out a process by which the people involved can be canvassed as to whether they are in favour of a levy being struck. One of the concerns I have about this process involves the people who participate. If members look at the Commodity Levies Act, they will see that a number of producer groups have been canvassed under that Act, like the pipfruit growers. They might strike a levy this year for all suppliers to be—
Hon Maurice WilliamsonDo not get the pip, please, I say to Mr Williamson. It might be that the levy this year will be X. The pipfruit growers might have 951 suppliers—I do not know whether that is the number, but it could be that—and it might be that as few as 90-odd, or about 10 percent, respond. We need to presume that if there were some concerns, the suppliers would vote against the levy. Participation in the vote is frequently lower than 30 percent. It is about striking the cost of a levy that the various suppliers will have to fund.
The list here includes the Animal Products Act, which I have mentioned, and the Biosecurity Act 1993, which has a couple of validations in here that I find quite interesting. One of them is the Biosecurity (Gypsy Moth Levy) Order of 2004.
Well, exactly! Members will know the furore that took place when the painted apple moth was treated with spray in Auckland, and this kind of levy allows for the management of that sort of thing. This particular levy allows for the payment of a fee to be used to set up all the little traps, so that if there is an incursion of gypsy moths, we are able to find out that they have come in. This levy is quite important as it provides for the first line of defence in our biosecurity, so that our forests are safe. If we have an incursion, then it can be dealt to.
The second validation under the Biosecurity Act that I find quite interesting is the Biosecurity (Varroa (South Island) Beekeeper Levy) Order of 2005. Members will know that varroa came into New Zealand about 5 years ago—
Hon Parekura HoromiaI can see that the member is also concerned that Labour members are not taking a call on this particular issue. When varroa came into New Zealand, it was agreed that if it ever got to the South Island it would need to be dealt to. So all the bee-keepers in the South Island—separate from those in the North Island—struck a levy under the Commodity Levies Act that would be used to deal with the problem when it occurred. But did it—
Yes, he hummed and hawed, and nothing was done. We have here a rollover of legislation to deal with the incursion of varroa in the South Island, when it is already there! We have a Minister for Biosecurity who is doing absolutely nothing about resolving that issue. That is a fascinating little insight into the Commodity Levies Act in relation to the Biosecurity Act; it is achieving very, very little.
As I have mentioned, this bill is an important part of what we do in terms of the process of striking fees and levies. We should not take it lightly. It is a significant step that takes place every year in a number of different ways and involves a number of organisations. The Regulations Review Committee provides a check and a balance; it makes sure that the proper process has been adhered to. Frequently, that committee writes and ask questions to determine the level of consultation, how many people voted, and what the process was. Members now have to sign off that review, and National is supporting this legislation this afternoon.
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
I rise to speak on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). Doug Woolerton contacted me about this legislation. I tell members that Doug can read, contrary to some opinions in the House. He asked me to give him a brief, particularly on the fisheries issues in respect of this legislation.
Members of the House will know that in schedule 10 of the Fisheries Act 1996 there are levies and conservation orders that need to be addressed in this legislation. I recall that some years ago, when I first took over the spokesmanship of the National Party in respect of commercial, customary, and recreational fisheries, we had a massive problem with regard to the levy orders that Labour had overseen, which the select committee at that time had to unwind. I recall that between $18 million and $20 million of extra levies had been collected unlawfully by the ministry, and had not been spent on what they were collected for. A return of those levies had to be passed through this Parliament, so that commercial fishers were not left short in the pocket in terms of unlawfully collected levies. We oversaw that legislation, and we made sure that that money was returned in kind to the commercial industry. It was returned not by way of a cheque written out to the industry but by ensuring that that money was spent going forward, in terms of levies not being collected that needed to be and of the unlawfully collected money being used to fill the gap.
Here we have the Government again slipping into subordinate legislation a section to do with the Fisheries Act 1996—
I say to Mr Williamson that the Fisheries (Schedules 2, 5, 6, and 8) Order 2007 is confirmed in this legislation.
I would like to go over the specific schedules, so that members are aware of what the House is doing this late afternoon. In terms of the Commodity Levies (Fish) Amendment Order 2006, orders Nos 1 to 3 were made under the Commodity Levies Act 1990. Section 12 of that Act states that the levy orders made under it must be confirmed by an Act of Parliament, and that is what we see before us today. Otherwise, the orders are deemed to be revoked. We do not want to see them deemed to be revoked; that is why we are passing this bill today.
Order No. 1 extends, for 5 years, the existing order relating to fish. It was made at the request of the Seafood Industry Council, the body that represents commercial fishers across the board and to which the levy is payable. The levy finances work on policy issues, research, promotion, and administration for the seafood industry. Members need to be aware that this levy is not collected for the promotion of Labour Party policy during next year’s campaign. I know that the Labour Party is looking at spending taxpayers’ money, and at spending all sorts of levies collected, to promote party policy during next year’s campaign in order to get around the provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill. But in the case of the seafood levy, that levy is collected for the seafood industry to use for its own research and promotion. It is not to be used for the promotion of Labour Party policies during next year’s election campaign. This is one avenue where the Labour Party, and the Labour Government, cannot use taxpayers’ money or industry levies in order to promote themselves and put themselves back on the Treasury benches. That would be illegal. We will be watching closely to ensure that the Labour Party does not use this funding to pursue its own political purposes.
Order No. 2 replaces the existing levy order relating to southern scallops, which expired in July 2007. Just then my voice cracked; it does that occasionally—a sort of second wave of puberty. The member from Kapiti has just gone through the first wave of puberty; other members, like myself, are going through the second wave. Order No. 2 changes the way that the southern scallops levy is calculated. In this case, the levy is payable to Challenger Scallop Enhancement Co. Ltd, not to the Seafood Industry Council. The company may spend the moneys collected from the levies for the purposes of enhancing and managing scallops and scallop harvesting rights in the southern scallop fishery. Over a number of years now we have seen how that enhancement company has evolved and boosted scallop production and the harvest not only for commercial fishers in the commercial fishing industry but also for recreational and customary fishers. It is a very successful fishery. During question time in the House tomorrow, Metiria Turei will probably promote the southern scallop fishery as a success story in New Zealand fisheries. I look forward to hearing her do that.
Order No. 3 imposes a single levy on farmed green-lipped mussels, Pacific oysters, and salmon. It replaces two existing levies on farmed green-lipped mussels and Pacific oysters. Members should get out their pen and paper and note that the levy is a voluntary levy paid on farmed salmon. It is a compulsory levy on farmed green-lipped mussels and a compulsory levy on Pacific oysters, but it is a voluntary levy on farmed salmon. For the benefit of those members who are writing this down, and for the benefit of Doug Woolerton, who is struggling to get this down, I say they should note that it is a voluntary levy on farmed salmon and a compulsory levy on the other species. It is payable to the recently established industry organisation New Zealand Aquaculture Ltd.
So we have the situation where the levies paid in the commercial sector are not paid just to one group. The first levy I spoke about is payable to the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council. I pointed out that the levy on southern scallops goes to Challenger Scallop Enhancement Co. Ltd, but this levy to do with aquaculture is paid to New Zealand Aquaculture Ltd. This will be the first time that that particular company, set up only recently, will be administering that levy for a full year. It will be interesting to see the company go through the process of making sure that the use of that levy is correct and that there is accountability for it. I remind the company and the House that the levy finances the work aimed at developing and managing the aquaculture industry, including promotion and research.
Once again, I say that the levy is not to be used for the promotion of the Labour Party during the election campaign next year. It is to be used for the promotion of aquaculture and aquaculture research. Should we see either Helen Clark or Michael Cullen dipping into those funds, or putting some sort of political pressure on Aquaculture New Zealand to use those moneys to promote Labour Party policy one day out from next year’s election, then that will be illegal. Harry Duynhoven may have plans for that use. Harry Duynhoven may be the shifty character who wants to do that before next year’s election day, but we will not allow that. This legislation says this money is not for the Labour Party and not for Harry Duynhoven; it is for the aquaculture industry to spend. Harry Duynhoven may very well blush, because he knows that I have caught him out in this House today. He knows that I can read his mind, and he may be embarrassed. The National Party will not see the use of that money by Labour happen. That money is not to be used to promote the Labour Party; it is to be used to promote aquaculture and aquaculture research only.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. I am told that every Wednesday morning, somewhere deep in the precincts of Parliament, an industrious committee is faced with about a 60-minute marathon in which a demanding schedule of regulations is put through the most rigorous parliamentary scrutiny. Regulations, acting as the legal instrument of Parliament, are examined by the Regulations Review Committee, in so far as regulations demonstrate points of detail in the implementation of policy. The bill before us is small. It has only 15 clauses all up, but, as is typical with subordinate legislation, it contains a range of varied items of lawmaking of interest to the Māori Party. Indeed, there is a smorgasbord of choice—an entrée of fish; supplemented with road-user charges, animal products for meat-lovers, and, chancing one’s arm, with a main meal of gambling. But as with every smorgasbord, some items on the menu do not always please the palate. Having previously had our venerable co-leader Dr Sharples speak on this bill on 11 October, and with his absence from the House today, I thought I would take the opportunity to add some spice to the smorgasbord laid before the House.
I note that the Regulations Review Committee was satisfied with the responses of officials with regard to this bill and recommended it be passed without amendment. So the menu for the smorgasbord is actually a set menu, and has been confirmed. That being the case, I will move directly to commence a discussion on the main dish rather than tempt the palate with the entrée. The dish I have chosen is gambling. The Māori Party is pleased that the levies imposed will assist in building capacity to deal with the ravages of gambling in our communities, particularly in the communities of the poor. Let me remind us all that for every $1 received by a community group as a grant through pokie machines, $3 has already been taken. We agree with the Green member Sue Bradford about the disproportionate manner in which casinos, pubs, and clubs are levied. We were also heartened to hear Maryan Street say that the gambling levy would be reviewed in 18 months, as opposed to 3 years.
We know that the communities of the poor are not necessarily the communities that receive anywhere near the money taken from them. If members check out who gets the bulk of these community grants they will see that it is not the Ōtaras, Māngeres, Ford Blocks, Bell Blocks, or Cannons Creeks of our society, nor is it the service organisations or sports clubs in the communities of the poor.
This brings me to the issue of gambling amongst Māori. We know from the work of the Problem Gambling Foundation that Māori have serious issues with gambling. I want to take this opportunity to address that issue. We know from the research that pre-European Māori society did not have traditions of gambling. It is fair to say that the early Māori experience of gambling with the settlers was generally positive. Gambling then involved group interaction, with the outcome—that is, the profits generated—directly benefiting the participants. The participants were in control, and the profits from the activities directly benefited their marae, church, and community. I myself remember card games—especially euchre and 500—and housie. Those games were the special fund-raisers. Fun was had by all. The profits went to the marae, choir, local school, or kapa haka group. Elder relatives I have spoken to do not recollect ever being aware of problem gamblers as a result of those activities. If issues arose—particularly those of child neglect—as a result of those activities, group pressure was brought to bear to address the situation.
Songs were composed. I remember very clearly a song composed by Professor Hirini Moku Mead, relating to an all-night card game and a sober warning of children being neglected as a result. As some members might have heard before, it goes something like this: “Tahi, rua, e toru roimata; whā, rima, e ono roimata; ka whitu, ka waru, ka iwa roimata; kei whea rā māmā?”.
[One, two, three teardrops; four, five, six teardrops; seven, eight, nine teardrops; where, oh where, is mum?]
That was a beautiful rendition, I thought. What the song is actually asking—besides counting—is, after all these tears, where mum is.
I also know that betting on horses was another activity where the benefits were individualised and the profits left the Māori communities in which the TABs were situated. Again, this was a social activity, as relatives would sit outside the TAB sharing dreams, disclosing losses from the week, and casting aspersions on the whakapapa of the horses that did not win. Needless to say, it was great wonder—and often a misplaced sense of matakite—that led many of my relatives to go on about how they picked a winner by the interpretation of dreams. It seems that anybody’s dream counted. Some used to make up dreams for uncles and aunties. That was all part of the fun. Every dream had a winner, and post-race analysis always managed to find that winner—the fault being with the interpretation of the dream.
Although I am referring to what was seen as fun, the current situation with Māori and gambling is no longer a laughing matter. Statistics from the Gambling Helpline in 2005 indicated that Māori were overrepresented—29.4 percent of new clients were Māori; 12.1 percent of significant others phoning the helpline were Māori; in face-to-face counselling, 31.4 percent of new clients were Māori; 35 percent of new clients were Māori men; and 22.9 percent of significant others seeking counselling were Māori. Pokies were the prime mode of problem gambling for men, at 72.6 percent, and for women, at 90.8 percent. In the 4 weeks prior to seeking help, 401 clients spent $573,125. That is an average of $1,429 each, which is $357 per week. That is a problem.
It is with these statistics from the Problem Gambling Foundation that we in the Māori Party alert this House to the devastation caused by access to gambling—particularly access to pokie machines and the effect they can have on whānau. The research shows that for every problem gambler, five other people are negatively affected.
We are supportive of this bill, but we caution that, as is the case with tobacco smoking, we in the Māori Party take very seriously the damage to whānau done by gambling, and especially the one-armed bandits robbing people in the name of entertainment and for the good of the community, apparently. In ending, all I can say is that members should watch this space.
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
It is with a great sense of humility, enthusiasm, duty, and loyalty that I announce that I support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3).
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) Link to this
I rise in support of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). I do so having come to understand more about what this sort of bill is in aid of and its purpose. The Regulations Review Committee brought this bill to the House. As other speakers have already outlined, a number of different confirmations and validations are in Part 2 of the bill. They include the Animal Products Act 1999, Commodity Levies Act 1990, Customs and Excise Act 1996, Fisheries Act 1996, Gambling Act 2003—which I intend to spend a bit more time on soon—New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, Social Security Act 1964, Road User Charges Act 1977, Tariff Act 1988, and War Pensions Act 1954. I intend to spend a little bit more time on some of these particular Acts and on the importance of their being validated here today in the House. I reiterate that National is supporting this legislation. But even though the whole House is likely to be supporting the legislation, it does not make it any less important that we understand what the bill actually brings into play.
One area I have a particular interest in is the Gambling Act 2003 and the levy that will be validated by this particular legislation. It seems that gambling is an area that others here in the House this afternoon are interested in, as well. I am particularly interested in it because in my previous life, working in crime prevention, I came to understand a little bit more about the need for a problem-gambling levy. We need the levy so that we have the opportunity to put in place some element of counselling and to make sure that problem gambling is seen. This afternoon, the member Te Ururoa Flavell talked about some of the gambling that we all grew up with—for example, euchre and housie evenings. In fact, I remember some years ago we had a gambling night when we were betting on horses that were cut out of plywood. We wound up the rope to see who could wind up the rope the fastest.
That is the sort of gambling that for many, many years people have had a great sense of fun with. They have also actually raised money, as has been suggested here in the House already. That is the sort of gambling that continues and is the safe sort of gambling. In recent years we have become aware of some of the hardship and some of the significant personal, social, and economic costs for individuals, families, communities, and the general public that problem gambling has wrought.
It has a disproportionate effect on some groups and communities. Problem gambling contributes to poverty and socio-economic inequalities, but that has been addressed since 1996 by successive Governments, and there is now a problem-gambling levy. Other aspects have now been used. I must say that the implementation of pop-ups on the one-armed bandits or pokies—call them what you like—has been brought into play. Having talked to the owners of clubs and pubs, and even the people who operate casinos, I am unconvinced as of yet whether the pop-ups actually do a lot of good. After all, some of the problem gamblers will simply press the button and off they go and continue. Because problem gambling is an addiction. It is an addiction that tears apart families. It is an addiction that is not cheap to treat, either, because as with other addictions, the counselling required and the detection of people with that addiction is quite expensive in terms of personnel, and being people with an addiction, those people are cunning. They are very, very cunning, and therefore they will try to escape detection by the people running the casinos, pubs, or clubs.
It is really important that we have that levy, but equally the National Party’s way of looking at it will always be that there must be a very good cost-benefit analysis of how we spend the levy. Our colleague Sandra Goudie has certainly shown that in the past some of the problem-gambling services have not been doing a good job, but have been spending an inordinate amount of money on counselling that probably has not been put to good effect.
What else would happen if this legislation were not passed? In another part of the bill we need to confirm the War Pensions (Rates of Pensions, Lump Sum Payments, and Allowances) Order 2007. War pensions are indexed annually to take into account the percentage increase in the consumer price index over the previous calendar year. It is absolutely imperative that we do that each year. I am sure it is not something that is easily forgotten, but equally it is important for those who are receiving war pensions under the War Pensions Act 1954 that it is increased and indexed to the consumer price index, because those same people are often left on limited incomes. Those same people are often left with disabilities that have come about as a part of their actions in serving our country. They served it many years ago, but now their health has suffered as a result of doing that.
We also need to make sure that the superannuitants of New Zealand are looked after. That is why we need to confirm the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Social Security Act 1964. That is also indexed to the consumer price index, and those people are often on limited incomes and will certainly be looking out to make sure that their income is increasing.
In summary, I would say that while being in the House this afternoon for this particular bill, the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3), I have learnt quite a lot about what has been described as a bill that simply passes legislation that needs to be validated and confirmed each year. The report of the Regulations Review Committee tells us that it asked the nine Government agencies responsible for administering this subordinate legislation to confirm that this action is required and to explain why confirmation and validation is warranted. The committee reported that it was satisfied by the agencies’ responses. Therefore, I would just say that National has great pleasure in supporting this legislation, and that I have learnt a lot about this type of legislation this afternoon.
DIANNE YATES (Labour) Link to this
I rise to speak on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3), and I was absolutely fascinated to hear that the previous speaker, Jo Goodhew, has learnt a lot from this debate, because I have learnt a great deal from her. I have just learnt that she cares about superannuitants. She must have forgotten about what Mrs Shipley did to superannuitants when she came into power and what happened to the payment rates of superannuation.
I am really glad that Jo Goodhew supports Labour Government policy on this issue. It is about time that she did support it, because many superannuitants are afraid. They are afraid that if Labour should ever lose the Government benches in this House, their superannuation would not continue to be paid at the current rates, and that the age of qualification would go up. I see members shaking their heads. I say it happened. It happened when Mrs Shipley was the Prime Minister of this country, and heaven help us if it should ever happen again. That is why many older people will be really concerned about this issue and the comments that were made by the speaker opposite. So I am really pleased that we see a new caring, sharing National Party.
I also say that this bill is a routine bill. It is legislation that basically turns over many of the levies that are charged annually. I look forward to the passing of this legislation.
NATHAN GUY (National) Link to this
It is with great pleasure that I rise to talk about the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). It is very important legislation in front of Parliament this evening. In particular I will make some comments on clause 8 in Part 2, regarding the Commodity Levies Act 1990, which is very important legislation for the rural community, and also clause 13 in Part 2, regarding the Road User Charges Act 1977.
When we look at the Road User Charges Act 1977 we see that it establishes a mechanism whereby cost can be incurred for vehicles, particularly heavy trucks, that are over 3.5 tonnes. The member Jonathan Coleman from Auckland would see them travelling over the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The revenue generated from these road user charges is paid into the National Land Transport Fund. It is great to see that the Labour Government has endorsed the National Party policy of 2005 by now putting all those taxes into roading, instead of into the consolidated account, because we all know that about 50 percent of costs incurred at the petrol pump and the diesel pump goes into taxes.
Yes, it is siphoned off into the consolidated account. So it is great to hear that the Labour Government is now endorsing the National Party policy of 2005 by putting those taxes into getting more roads built in this country. [ Interruption]
I looked at the Act, which I have in front of me, for Mr Duynhoven’s information. He might be interested to learn that this legislation came into effect in March 1978, and I want to raise some particular points for Mr Duynhoven. I will talk about the number of axles permitted on the road and about the road-bearing weights on those axles, as well. Mr Duynhoven would, I am sure, be very interested in that. We can look at what is happening in Australia, where there are road trains, or B trains. Australians are allowed far longer loads on their vehicles than we in New Zealand are, so I think that will happen here in time. Perhaps under a National Government we could inject some more money into roading and get the Resource Management Act tidied up.
The other aspect I want to talk about is the Commodity Levies Act 1990. When we look at this Act, we see that it covers a whole wide range of primary production sectors. I will not go through all of them, but I will give Mr Duynhoven a few examples. It includes arable crops and asparagus right through to milk, meat, maize, nashi pears—I am not sure whether any of those grow up in Taranaki; it might be too cold—and through to horticultural products such as passionfruit and other pipfruit. In essence, we are passing this subordinate legislation this evening to ensure that those primary sector industries have some funding to be able to get on and do market research, and research and development. Some may choose, through the process in the Regulations Review Committee, to put it out for 5 years and some may choose to have it struck at 1 year, and generally the percentages range between 1 percent and 5 percent.
National has no issues with this legislation in front of us tonight. In fact, we believe that it is very important and paramount legislation, particularly for primary industry products that are covered by clause 8, relating to the Commodity Levies Act 1990. So National supports this reading of this bill in Parliament this evening.
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon Harry Duynhoven is using his phone at the moment with an earpiece. That is inappropriate in this Chamber.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
The member should consider his position and take the issue outside the Chamber. Thank you.
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take it that if I adopt the practice of using a post and telegraph - type handset to listen to my messages on my cellphone, that is acceptable. I take it also that if I tuck my head under the bench—as I saw a National member doing earlier in the day—to listen to cellphone messages, that is also acceptable. Perhaps you could clarify that, Mr Speaker.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
There are a number of Speakers’ rulings on that and the Speaker has given a considered ruling on the use of electronic gadgetry inside the Chamber. I suggest members have a look at the Speaker’s ruling.
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
I ask for clarification on one other matter to do with this. Is it acceptable to use a laptop computer in the House? I understand it is. And is it acceptable to use an earpiece in association with a laptop in the House?
Dr Jonathan ColemanThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
Again, I suggest that the member look at the very precise ruling that Madam Speaker gave on this. It is quite extensive and it covers the issues that have been raised by the members.