Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill

This is important legislation albeit, as I have said, it is not bowel-gripping. I have made a point that I would just like to underscore again in connection with the name of this legislation—the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. What is in a name, some might ask. But often the importance of a title is understated. It seems to me that two clear principles should dominate the minds of those who name bills. The first is whether the name of the bill accurately reflects the content of the legislation. The second point is that for those who follow in our shoes as legislators or those who study legislation, whether as students or as practitioners, the legislation is logically named.

If one were looking to find this legislation it might not be an easy exercise. How would one learn the status of the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order 2005 if one did not know that there was legislation of validation and confirmation? I would like to see, and I know that National would like to see, consideration given to a recommendation of the Regulations Review Committee that the phrase “regulation” is worthy of review. It is really against that background that the Regulations Review Committee recommended to the Government that an opportunity be taken to define what regulations are, because the reality is that there are a number of pieces of subordinate legislation like these that are not titled regulations, but which, for practical purposes, are regulations and are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Regulations Review Committee.

So if one looks at the Road User Charges (Rates) Order 2005, which is referred to in clause 14, one might think that it is not a regulation. It is expressed, on its face, to be an order. But in the context of the jurisdiction of the Regulations Review Committee and the obligations for publication of orders, it is, in fact, a regulation. That is why it seemed to me, in a compelling way, that it was appropriate to recommend to the Government that it amend the definition of regulations in the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 and in the Interpretation Act 1999 in line with the definition of legislative instrument as set out in the Australian Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

There are a number of justifications for doing that. There is a jurisprudential justification, but I would say there is also a case for aligning as much as we can our legislation with Australia. I express a caution in connection with that, because we should not adopt Australian practices that lead to increased costs of compliance, increased bureaucracy, and the like, but that need not be the case here. If we had a definition of and register of legislative instruments, then much of the difficulty that I have adverted to in my previous comments would not arise.

Of course, we have a commencement date for this legislation in clause 2. The Act will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. That is why, one assumes, we are in urgency for the purposes of the consideration of this legislation: to avoid the possibility that a gap will occur and there will arise for a period an inability on the part of the Crown to collect what are in the nature, in many cases in Part 2, of levies or taxes.

I am not really persuaded by the view Dr Cullen has offered as to why there is a conscientious objection provision in one of these orders. That seems sadly misplaced and out of date in the context of this sort of legislation.

I will just finalise the debate for National on the title and commencement date of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. One of the important pieces of legislation that is provided for in this bill, which I did briefly mention, is the confirmation of the rates of New Zealand superannuation coming under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and Social Security Act 1964. I just make the comment that if the rates of superannuation are not changed, then we are in a very dire strait. Many, many New Zealanders would be disaffected by that, and it would cause hardship. So the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order 2005, which was made on 7 March 2005, is validated and confirmed by this bill. When we come back to the title of the bill, we find it actually ties in nicely with that regulation.

That order increased most benefits and pensions in accord with the all groups consumer price index, which increased by 2.7 percent. In particular, the order increased the amounts of funeral grants and increased the widows benefit, invalids benefit, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, domestic purposes benefit, child disability benefit, disability benefit, independent youth-related emergency benefit, and the hospital rate. We are confirming and validating a very important regulation today, and that is why the title of this bill encompasses those provisions. The maximum amount of income that a blind beneficiary could earn while still receiving a subsidy was also increased, as were certain asset and income limits. The order also increased the rates of New Zealand superannuation entitlements.

In bringing the debate to a close for National, I say we support this legislation. We supported it in the first reading, in the select committee stage, and through the Committee stage and we will also support it in the third reading.

New Zealand First supports the passage of the bill, but I just want to stand and congratulate Mr Worth and Mr Tisch. Every morning when I wake up, I thank God that there are such people as Mr Worth and Mr Tisch in this world, and specifically in this Parliament. I could not bear to do the wonderful work that they do, such as going through all of these bills word by word and clause by clause. I think they do a wonderful job. I think the rest of us in this Parliament, who are more generalist in nature and, dare I say it, have a much more positive outlook on life than they do, thank them sincerely for the work they do. I just could not let this time go by without putting that on the record. I thank those two gentlemen. I appreciate the fact that they are here.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading