Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill

This is a continuation of the Committee stage of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill, which National supports. We see in Part 2 a listing of a number of statutes, including the Animal Products Act and the Biosecurity Act, and I understand that Mr Tisch will speak on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act. Under those Acts, subordinate legislation is made that is required to be in some cases confirmed, and in three cases validated and confirmed. Those three validation and confirmation orders relate to orders made under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the Social Security Act; the Tariff Act; and the War Pensions Act.

In what I hope will be the first of many calls on this important Part 2, I would just like to take as an example the Biosecurity Act 1993. It is an interesting illustration, because Parliament is asked to confirm two orders. The first is the Biosecurity (Gypsy Moth Levy) Order and the second is the Biosecurity (Varroa (South Island) Beekeeper Levy) Order. I will deal first with the issue of the gypsy moth.

Members who were on the select committee will know that that is one of the world’s most destructive forestry pests. So it was that Minister Sutton said that it took 2 years from the trapping of the final moth to declare a pest eradicated, and the last and only Asian gypsy moth in the city of Hamilton was trapped on 26 March 2003. In looking at the issue of gypsy moth around the world, it is quite clear it is a hugely destructive forest pest. Particularly in North America, forests have been savaged by the emergence of the gypsy moth from the egg-larva cycle.

I note that in April 2004 the then representative of the Green Party on issues of biosecurity noted that we needed, on an ongoing basis, to be extraordinarily vigilant in a setting where Asian gypsy moth egg masses were discovered on an imported vehicle.

I have said that the legislation is made under the Biosecurity Act. I think what is interesting in connection with those two levies is that two quite separate sections of the Biosecurity Act are involved. The first is section 137, which relates to the gypsy moth provision, and that particular statutory provision states that the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the responsible Minister, may by Order in Council impose a levy for the purposes of funding a service or function performed by the department for the purposes of the Act.

If we look at the orders themselves, we see they are cast in a very similar way, but I note one striking difference between the two of them—that is, in connection with the varroa mite, conscientious objection provisions are built into the order itself. So under clause 18, headed “Conscientious objection”, a beekeeper who objects on conscientious or religious grounds to paying the levy in the manner provided for by that order, may pay the amount concerned to the Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

We are privileged to have in the House the Minister of Finance, who has special expertise concerning the varroa mite, and I invite him to make some explanation as to why it was appropriate in that particular levy order to include that conscientious objection provision. Why is it appropriate to provide, as a ground for objection to payment of the levy, the provision that in fact exists in this legislation? So a number of orders are referred to in Part 2, and those are two of the more interesting.

Part 2 deals with confirmations and validations. I mentioned briefly in the debate on Part 1 that I wanted to look specifically at two areas, one being the Biosecurity Act of 1993, and that I would mention in passing clause 13, “New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Social Security Act 1964”.

I have a question for the Minister, however, which maybe should have come up in the debate on Part 1. He may be able to respond to my question: as we are dealing with clauses that expire, as there needs to be consultation, and as the levies go up each year—that is the process we are going through—is there a proposition that under the sunset clause provisions we are dealing with, there will be a tidier way of going through that process, without having to come back on an annual basis to go through it? I see he is shaking his head—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think it is important that Parliament validates and confirms.

Would the Minister be prepared to take a call shortly, just to say why we go through the process? It is mainly for the sake of interest that I ask him to do so, because I look at other jurisdictions and see sunset clauses—Australia has moved very much to sunset clauses in a lot of its legislation—and I would really like to know, for my own interest if for no one else’s, why we do this on an annual basis. If the Minister does take a call, I would certainly appreciate it.

I come back to clause 9 in Part 2, which concerns the whole area of biosecurity, and in particular the gypsy moth levy and the varroa South Island bee-keeper levy. It was interesting that prior to the luncheon break we passed the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill, which National supported because it is our view that nothing is more important than biosecurity. We must have defences, and we must have in place the mechanisms to protect not only our exports but our culture and our heritage. Those things cannot be compromised.

In relation to the Biosecurity Act of 1993, I want to spend time on the varroa mite, which has caused so many problems. It was originally envisaged, of course, that the varroa bee mite would go only as far south as Taupō. Then, over time, it has actually now—oh, yes; the Minister is shaking his head—extended its area throughout the whole of the North Island. My colleague Shane Ardern, during his speech on the previous bill, asked what would happen if the varroa bee mite actually ends up in the South Island. That would be a huge problem for bee-keepers in the South Island, just as it is for those around the rest of New Zealand, and that is why we must make sure that the requirements, levies, and protection for our biosecurity are paramount.

It is our view that the Government has been lax in this area, and that there were very clear indications that the varroa bee mite would become a problem. If it gets into the South Island, then we are in real trouble. I actually mentioned that earlier on, in the first reading debate, before the bill went to the Regulations Review Committee. I do not know what discussion was held specifically on clause 9, which concerns the biosecurity area, during the deliberations of the committee. Maybe my colleague Dr Worth can fill us in on that.

I also want to draw the attention of the Committee to clause 12, which concerns the Customs and Excise Act 1996, and in particular the Customs Import Prohibition (Trout) Amendment Order. That is a very, very important clause, as it relates to the Waikato, an area I represent, and to trout fishing. The whole trout issue is a very important one for tourism. People travel the world to come and fish for trout, so it is very important that we do not relax the requirements on importing trout, because of its potential effect on tourism. What attracts a lot of overseas people to New Zealand are the trout throughout the Rotorua and Taupō region, and further north into the Waikato. So I bring clause 12 and the prohibition order there to the attention of the Committee. It is very important, and important for our region. I know that Stevie Chadwick is here in the Chamber, and that she would also say that on behalf of Rotorua. She nods her head in agreement with me. She also did that during the first reading of the bill, so I know I am actually on the right track.

If I could try to respond briefly, my understanding is that the conscientious objection clause and the levy issue there relates to similar provisions in the Commodity Levies Act and, therefore, has been carried over into that. In terms of the primary issue raised by Mr Tisch, I think it is very important, where the Government is imposing levies, creating new levies, or increasing levies, and where it is increasing things like superannuation and benefits that have very significant fiscal costs, that Parliament retains its ultimate right of control over those decisions made by the Government. The Government cannot keep coming back for primary legislation every time these kinds of things are required. However, it is important that the Government is simply able to impose them without reference back. On occasions in the past, separate legislation has been required for that confirmation. It is now the practice, and has been for some years, to have a single Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act.

I am afraid I cannot advise the member about the possibility of the South Island being infested by the varroa mite. Clearly, no level of regulation could prevent that from happening. Indeed, there was hope that a line could be drawn somewhere around Taupō, but the varroa bee mite was able to cross that line, and so it spread. As always with those kinds of pests, once they are here we can only manage them. They are not able to be eliminated, because they quickly become widespread throughout the country.

The member raised one other issue, I think, which has escaped my mind—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I mentioned trout.

The issue of trout—yes, indeed. The view is commonly held that if trout were able to be farmed, that would somehow reduce the value of freshwater angling for trout, in the same way that if—in a strange and unreal world that one could not possibly imagine—one could buy tinned tuna, that would clearly remove the ambitions of people who want to go deep-sea fishing for wild tuna.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): There will be one debate for clauses 1 and 2. The vote will be separate.