Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill

I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time. At the conclusion of the first reading debate, I will move that the bill be referred to the Regulations Review Committee with an instruction that the bill be reported back finally by 5 December 2005.

This is a routine annual bill that is required to confirm and validate items of subordinate legislation that, in accordance with the provisions in the Acts under which the various instruments are made, lapse at stated times, unless earlier confirmed or validated by Parliament. This year the bill provides for Parliament to confirm or validate one set of regulations and 18 Orders in Council made under 11 Acts. To avoid the subordinate legislation lapsing, the bill must be passed by the end of this calendar year. The 5 December report-back date will allow time for the select committee to receive explanations on the contents of the bill from the departments that administer the various orders and regulations.

Two of the 18 orders apply movements in the consumer price index to the rates of social security benefits, New Zealand superannuation, and war pensions. Five orders are made under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. Two of those apply to annual excise adjustment rates, one continues to prevent the importation of trout and trout products, and another continues import prohibitions on goods such as certain types of asbestos and specified offensive weapons. The fifth continues the export prohibition on goods such as defined pounamu, but discontinues the export prohibition on certain sheep breeds and their reproductive material—[Interruption] I was not looking at Mr Clarkson at that point.

Four of the orders are made under the Tariff Act 1988. They insert new items into the tariff, extend the tariff concession, and implement various tariff reductions and removals. Three of the orders deal with commodity levies. The first replaces a similar order relating to eggs, and the second relates to grape wine and the component of grape wine products. Those two orders were voted on by the respective industry participants themselves. The third is a technical amendment relating to green-lipped mussels and to the repeal of parts of the Meat Act 1981. Two of the orders apply biosecurity levies to contribute to the cost of post-border surveillance for gypsy moth, and implement a national pest management strategy for varroa mite. One order increases certain rates of road-user charges under the Road User Charges Act 1977. Another order amends a principal order to require international operators to pay the departing international passenger levy, which was previously paid by aerodrome operators.

Finally, one set of regulations alters various animal product verification charges and levies to reflect similar changes to amounts payable under the parallel regime in the Meat Act 1981. I commend the bill to the House.

National will be supporting the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is one that we will not get too excited about; it is not a very interesting bill. In fact, it is amazing that there are so many people here to hear my speech this evening.

💬 Hon Member: Just keep us awake.

Well, yes, here we are. It is very important bill though, because as the Minister said, it does confirm and validate a range of regulations. They will be going to the Regulations Review Committee, of which I was a member for some time, so I do know the importance—

💬 Darren Hughes: A senior member!

Yes, I certainly know the importance of it. I note that that committee is chaired by Dr Richard Worth, one of our own—a very worthy chair. His experience and knowledge of legal matters are very important in a committee such as that. He chaired it in the last Parliament and he will be chairing it again this time, so I know this legislation will be in very, very safe hands.

This is not a very big bill; it is only about four pages. When we look at it, we see there are 17 clauses in it. If we were to take out the title and commencement clauses and then look at the rest, although Part 1, “General and technical provisions”, has a number of clauses, we see that it is really Part 2, “Confirmations and validations”, that is the important part. The clauses in that part range from clause 8 through to clause 17. We will be debating those particular clauses in time, but not tonight. Once the bill goes to the select committee I am sure that its members will look very closely at those 10—clauses 8 to 17—different measures.

An interesting question arises—it is not new tonight; it has arisen before—as to why we actually go through this process, when there could have been sunset clauses. I notice that a number of jurisdictions around the world are now implementing sunset clauses. Of course, if this Parliament does not validate these regulations, then many people and organisations will be in deep trouble. I guess that if we look at clause 13 we see that that is the key. That is probably the most important measure, and the Minister did mention it. It is to do with changes to social security, and I read in the explanatory note that that order, which came into force on 1 April 2005—so it is retrospective; it has happened a few months ago—increases most benefits and pensions according to an increase in the all groups consumer price index of 2.7 percent. So if this Parliament decided not to pass this legislation, then that increase would lapse and a number of people would be sorely affected by it.

There is another matter that I want to bring to members’ attention, and it relates to the biosecurity provision in Part 2. I said right at the beginning that we would support this legislation, but it does highlight the incompetence of this Labour Government in the way that it has handled border control and the incursions that have happened. If we look at the varroa bee mite, remembering that it got only as far south as Taupō, we now see it extending throughout the whole of the North Island. The whole of the North Island is affected by that mite, and of course it is only a matter of time before it gets down into the South Island. So border control is a very, very important part of our security. It affects the bee and honey industries, yet border security and border control is something we believe this Government has been lax in. The varroa bee mite is a wake-up call, and when we get to the select committee and look at that provision, I am sure some important measures will be debated at that point

I also want to bring members’ attention to clause 12, which contains the prohibition on importing trout. In the Waikato, Bay of Plenty, and Taupō regions trout fishing is a very important part of the tourism industry—and I should have also mentioned the South Island. Clause 12 sets out the prohibition on importing trout from 7 November 2004 for a 3-year period to 7 November 2007. So that is a very important one for New Zealand.

Once again, I say National will support this legislation. In the capable hands of Dr Richard Worth I am sure it will get the due attention it deserves, and those who wish to make submissions on it will be able to do so at the appropriate time. National is happy to support the bill.

As the previous speaker has said, this is not a very exciting bill, but New Zealand First will be supporting it going to the Regulations Review Committee. I am pleased that Lindsay Tisch gave Mr Worth such a good build-up, because he is probably the only person who would. We are pleased to support this legislation.

But I want to say to the House that we went through the right-wing economic phase some years ago—which I am sure Dr Cullen would sooner forget about, and which the National Party and the ACT party find it impossible to forget about. In fact, they are rushing around hoping for the day when they can reinstitute many of the things that happened all those years ago. But this is a typical example of what happened all those years ago when people were so keen on talking about reducing taxes: they would reduce taxes here; they would give tax reductions all over the place; and the Government had no place in business or in people’s lives, etc., etc. So they did all of those things, but let me tell members that these sorts of things were the result of that. They got tax cuts, and they did all those sorts of things, but along came levies in another guise. So in the cities were people who were paying rates and being promised rate reductions, but then they went out and got charged 20 bucks to dump their trailer-load of rubbish in the dump where previously that cost was built into the rates.

It is the same with these sorts of things. These levies have come about as a result of the unbundling all of those years ago, but the point is that people are still paying tax, and they are paying levies on top. Now, I must say that these particular levies are at least under the scrutiny of the House or a committee of Parliament, and at least they are renewable each year. So when a levy is no longer needed, such as the levy for the varroa bee mite and things like that, it can be got rid of without fuss, without causing alarm around the country, and without a whole lot of political agitation. They can be simply left off and not renewed. As to the rest of them, they have a slide rule, as it were, run across them, and they have a fresh examination each year to see whether they are just, whether they are right, set at the same level, and in fact still needed.

I like to think that there should be more of that sort of thing. I know that the argument against it is that it would choke up the House, but there are other levies and taxes that, if done on an annual basis, would make many of us feel far more comfortable about it.

I want to leave people with the message that there is always a cost, and there has been much ranting over the previous bill. It is true that we are in favour of people paying lower taxes in this country, but to a level where we do not have to reinstitute levies in another form, or licences, or fees for other things that in my view can sometimes, when all added up, be more expensive than the original tax, but just levied in different parts of one’s life. So New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee, where it will get the scrutiny it deserves. If I do not have a heck of a lot of faith in Mr Worth, at least the other select committee members will make sure this thing is done properly.

Bill read a first time.

I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be referred to the Regulations Review Committee for consideration, and that it be an instruction to the committee to present a final report on the bill by 5 December 2005.

Motion agreed to.