Subordinate Legislation (Confirmationand Validation) Bill (No 2)

, on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. There is routinely an annual bill to confirm and validate a range of regulations. It is normally introduced in spring and passed by December. This year the bill provides for Parliament to confirm and validate 14 Orders in Council made under nine Acts. I will propose that the bill be referred, as is customary, to the Regulations Review Committee, chaired by my colleague Mr Worth.

Five of the 14 orders deal with levies that were voted upon themselves by growers of commodities such as passion fruit, wheat grain, milk solids, satsuma mandarins, and herbage seeds. The levies serve to finance industry-good activities, and are payable to industry organisations such as Federated Farmers. Four of the 14 orders applied movements in the consumer price index. Two of them applied increases to social security benefits and allowances and to war pensions and allowances. The third adjusted the excise on tobacco products, and the fourth increased the maximum rate for funeral grants. Another three of the orders prohibited imports or exports. Two of those related to Patagonian toothfish, and the other to dogs of specified dangerous breeds. One order provided for the recovery by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries of related costs from the exporters of live animals and germ plasm. The final order removed a requirement relating to the taking of packhorse rock lobster.

All the orders are unremarkable fare for these annual bills, so I shall not go into them in any more detail.

It is a privilege to speak in support of this legislation. As the previous speaker has said, National supports this legislation and its referral to the Regulations Review Committee. I would have to say that it is not exactly a bowel-gripping topic. It certainly does not have the same emotion associated with it as the previous legislation that the House has been dealing with. It is legislation in a simple form, comprising three parts. Part 2 is the critical part that confirms and validates a number of orders and regulations.

One can legitimately ask whether it is appropriate that the form of words touching confirmation and validation should continue to be used. It is interesting to reflect that the process has been used over quite a considerable time period. The earliest legislation in respect of which validation of orders was sought was the War Pensions Act 1954. The process continues with legislation enacted in 2001. It is also clear that associated with the passage of this legislation will be the repeal of earlier legislation—in this case, the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act of the previous year.

In looking at this legislation I thought that I would refer briefly to two measures that are the subject of validation steps. The first is contained in Statutory Regulation 2003/118, made under the Animal Products Act. That regulation is reasonably significant and deals with a raft of issues, such as charges for verification services, and the setting of new fees and charges in respect of the export of live animals and germ plasm, being animal semen, animal embryos or ova, or the hatching of eggs of birds. New fees are introduced for the listing of game estates. There are other changes relating to pet food levies, and perhaps surprisingly, a levy of $5 per head is introduced for the slaughter of ostriches and emus. The second order I seek to refer to briefly is made under the Fisheries Act 1996, and deals with packhorse rock lobster. That particular provision is concerned with removing packhorse rock lobster from a schedule to the Fisheries Act, the effect of which is to remove the requirement for commercial fishers to have a minimum holding of three tonnes of annual catch entitlement before they can take packhorse rock lobster.

I do not doubt that the Regulations Review Committee will perform competently, and will faithfully discharge its obligations to the House in considering this particular legislation.

In considering this legislation, I note in particular clauses 12 and 13. I am reminded of the problems that were associated with the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act 2002, which is referred to in clause 13. In a speech quite similar to the one we have just heard from the Associate Minister of Finance David Cunliffe, we were informed that it was the usual washing-up legislation, it was to go to the Regulations Review Committee, and there would be no problems with it. Last year we discovered that the Government—and I refer to clause 13—had a problem with at least $140 million worth of bills and charges made to fishermen. We had considerable difficulties with that legislation, and the Government was terribly embarrassed by the way in which it had behaved under it. As I understand it, there was a settlement of somewhere around $20 million to $40 million as a result of the Government’s behaviour with regard to the previous year’s subordinate legislation that had been validated.

In this particular legislation I note that there is, again, something to do with the Fisheries Act 1996. Nowadays in this House, anything that says “fisheries” has to be looked at very carefully. Clause 7l refers to the Fisheries (Removal of Packhorse Rock Lobster from Eighth Schedule) Order. I would not know what a packhorse rock lobster was, but anyone who is interested and has been affected by the packhorse rock lobster legislation or regulations should take a close interest in this bill.

I am a member of the Regulations Review Committee, and New Zealand First will be looking at this bill closely at the select committee.

The Green Party will be supporting the subordinate legislation bill before us this afternoon, but there is one particular clause that I would like to address.

Clause 8 deals particularly with cost of living increases applied to benefits and allowances as of 1 April 2003. I would like to use this opportunity to take a closer look at exactly what the rates of benefits are, due to the widespread misapprehension among many, in some parts of New Zealand society, that people choose to live on benefits, such is the wonderful lifestyle incurred. As of 1 April this year, and as per the legislation before us today, a single person aged between 20 and 24 who is unemployed or sick receives a net weekly benefit of $134.75, entailing a cost of living adjustment of an additional $3.59 per week. On the other hand, for a person who has finally reached adulthood at the impressive age of 25, the benefit has gone up from $157.37 per week to $161.65, giving an increase of $4.28 per week.

There are a number of things to look at here. First of all, I wonder how many people in this Chamber, and how many people outside it who criticise beneficiaries for being lazy bludgers, can imagine what it is like to really try to live on $134 or $161 per week. Even for a single person without dependants, trying to survive on that amount of money anywhere in New Zealand, much less in one of our larger cities, is just about impossible. We have seen news today of the enormous increase in housing costs everywhere, not just in Auckland and Wellington, but all over the country, including horrendous rises in places of relatively high employment, like Nelson. We have also recently had Steve Maharey’s Jobs Jolt, which tells us that the—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have the let the member go on a little bit longer, but this bill is about confirming and validating regulations; a little bit of leeway is possible, but this is not a case for a general discussion on benefits. The member should come back to the bill itself.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was under the impression that I was talking about clause 8, which relates to benefit rates.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It validates regulations, and the member can say why she is in favour of, or opposed to, it.

Fundamentally, the Green Party supports the bill, including that clause, because we do want benefit rates to rise. But the amount they are rising by in the cases I have mentioned—$3.59 and $4.28 a week—and in all the other rate increases in this bill, are way below what this or any Government should be doing with the benefit system. I have been outlining the reasons for that, but evidently one is not allowed to talk about that in this debate.

Behind this, we believe that benefit rates should be raised, and that they should be indexed in the same way that superannuation is. Benefit levels should be protected by being linked to a fixed percentage of the average wage, just as for superannuation. It is about time that Labour brought the principles of sufficiency, universality, and simplicity to our benefit system.

I rise on behalf of United Future to support the bill. I do not intend to speak at any length on it—a fact that will earn me brownie points with my Petone Community Board colleague MP Moana Mackey, as well as with the Government whip. Clearly, the advantage of the Government being able to move by Order in Council such matters as are contained in this bill enables it to provide flexibility and to move with speed. I note in particular that it has been important and desirable for the Government to be able to move by Order in Council on the Customs Import Prohibition (Dangerous Breeds of Dogs) Order, the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order, the Social Security (Funeral Grants) Order, and the War Pensions (Rates of Pensions and Allowances) Order. The bill provides a useful function in enabling the Government to move on those matters without their immediate consideration by the House and the delays that that incurs. On the other hand, the requirement that such a bill come to the House provides an opportunity for Parliament to consider and debate the matters for which orders have been made, and, therefore, there is a degree of accountability on the part of the Government, and I think that is welcome, as well. United Future will support this bill.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Regulations Review Committee.