Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill

National will support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. It is the confirmation and validation of a number of pieces of legislation, mainly of a technical nature. Part 1, which consists of general and technical provisions, does not really inspire great debate and I will not be taking major calls on it. However, I will have something specific to say when we get to Part 2, and that will relate to the biosecurity aspect, which, interestingly, we have just been talking about in respect of the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill. It is interesting that this legislation follows that bill, because I will be saying some specific things on that. I will also be looking at the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act, which is an important piece of legislation that we will find in Part 2.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

As I said prior to the luncheon break, one cannot get too enthusiastic about this bill. However, it is important legislation in that it confirms and validates a number of pieces of legislation that would otherwise cause a lot of embarrassment and concern to people who might miss out, especially in the area of superannuation. As I said earlier, I will probably look at that issue in the debate on Part 2.

I just draw the Committee’s attention to the report from the Regulations Review Committee that has been tabled. It is a very short report. Let us consider whom the committee consists of. It is chaired by Dr Richard Worth, and if anybody has an understanding of legislation, it must be Dr Worth. He has chaired that committee over the last 3 years, and continues to chair it. His understanding, and his ability to crystallise and articulate the arguments that are so important in the important legislation that we are discussing today, is a credit to him. Also on the committee are Eric Roy and Kate Wilkinson.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That’s the A-team.

I say to the Minister that it is a good team of people who actually understand the technicalities and how this sort of legislation needs to be progressed. The Minister said it was the A-team—well, Eric Roy was a member of the House some years ago, and he has a deep understanding and can contribute to this process. Kate Wilkinson is a lawyer, and her legal background is important and adds value to the process of this legislation.

Part 1 looks at general and technical provisions, and states that the bill’s purpose is to confirm and validate certain subordinate legislation in accordance with confirmation and validation provisions in the Acts under which it is made. Part 1 really sets the scene for what becomes important in Part 2, where there are specific issues that need attention drawn to. I will take a call on Part 2, mainly in relation to biosecurity. Of course, just prior to the luncheon adjournment we passed all stages of the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill. That ties nicely into Part 2 in relation to the Biosecurity Act 1993.

The other area that I think is significant relates to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Social Security Act 1964. We will be spending time on that. I do not wish to take further time on Part 1. As I said, National will support this bill. Part 1 just relates to the general and technical provisions.

I am grateful for the comments made by the colleague who preceded me, in connection with the Regulations Review Committee and its membership. He is right to say that the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill is not exactly bowel-gripping stuff. We are at the moment dealing with Part 1, “General and technical provisions”. Those provisions find their way before Parliament each year, for each year involves the enactment of legislation of this type.

There are a number of points of significance in connection with Part 1. The first relates to the purpose of the legislation. The bill is described as being “to confirm and validate certain subordinate legislation that, in accordance with confirmation and validation provisions in the Acts under which it is made, lapses at a stated time unless earlier confirmed or validated by Act of Parliament.” We are talking about subordinate legislation that, in effect, has a sunset clause. Unless this confirmation and validation process occurs, the legislation is effectively spent. In looking at the actual orders that are confirmed, because of their levy characteristics and the obligations for consultation it is clearly appropriate that there be the lapse of that subordinate legislation unless validated by Parliament.

The bill is headed “Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill”. I will talk for a few moments about what is implicit in that word “subordinate”. We in this Chamber are used to passing bills that in due time become Acts or statutes. In the world of subordinate legislation we are not talking about Acts or statutes, at all. We are talking about regulations, rules, and notices. The curious thing, in the setting of the Regulations Review Committee, is that not all subordinate legislation is within the purview of the committee. That is why, in June 2004, the committee reported to Parliament on an inquiry into the principles determining whether delegated legislation is given the status of regulation. Some subordinate legislation is amenable to the jurisdiction of the committee, and other legislation is not. That seems clearly anomalous—that was certainly the view of the committee. When the Government produced its response to the committee report, that seemed, similarly, to be the response of the Government.

I urge the Government, in the context of the debate on Part 1, to take up a challenge that was issued by the Regulations Review Committee—to line up the definition of “regulations” in the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 and the Interpretation Act 1999 with the definition of “legislative instrument” as set out in Australia’s Legislative Instruments Act 2003. That was too much for the Government to digest at first opportunity. Instead, it sought a lapse of time so that it could look more closely at how the Australian legislation was working.

We are concerned here with subordinate legislation that is amenable to Regulations Review Committee oversight. But such is not always the case. In this particular instance, the committee wrote to the seven Government departments responsible for administering this legislation to ask them to explain why confirmation or validation was warranted. Those particular Government entities were the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of Social Development, the New Zealand Customs Service, and the New Zealand Defence Force. Those Government agencies were able to satisfy the committee that it was appropriate for this legislation to be passed, so the committee recommended that course.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Confirmations and validations