Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2)

on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Regulations Review Committee to consider the bill.

This is a routine, technical bill and it comes before the House every year. However, it is a very important bill all the same. The bill confirms or validates items of subordinate legislation that must be confirmed or validated by Parliament. This is a requirement of the empowering Acts under which the various orders or regulations have been made. The role played by the House in confirming or validating the various items and the scrutiny provided by the Regulations Review Committee provide a layer of protection in the regulation-making process. Should the House decide to withhold its approval for a particular regulation or order contained in the bill, that regulation or order will lapse.

In its report on the 2012 bill the Regulations Review Committee acknowledged that it is not reasonable or practicable to introduce subordinate legislation bills in the first half of the calendar year. However, the committee also recommended that in order to allow time for scrutiny of the implementation of the policy, the Government look at introducing these bills earlier in the year than has been usual—preferably on 1 August, or as close to that date as possible. I am happy to report that the Government has introduced this year’s bill as soon as it was practicable.

This bill covers a range of regulations—24 orders. I will not delay the House’s time in considering each of these regulations. They will be there in the regulation within the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

I do not understand why the Government is filibustering this Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2)! It is one that is relatively simple. It is an annual bill. It goes off to the Regulations Review Committee. If there are particular orders in there that the committee wants to draw the House’s attention to, it will. Otherwise, there will be smooth passage.

It is my pleasure to take a brief call on this Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) this morning. As previous members have stated, this is a bill that comes to the House every year. It validates and confirms subordinate legislation such as commodity levies and other orders. It comes to the Regulations Review Committee. The select committee basically writes to the Ministers and departments about the levies or the orders that are in place, to see whether they are still to be confirmed. The Ministers and departments write back and acknowledge that they should be, and then it gets reported back to the House. It is a fairly swift process but it is a very important process, because if we do not have this legislation, those orders or levies will lapse. I look forward to seeing it in the Regulations Review Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

I look forward to taking at least three 5-minute calls on this Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). They say that making legislation is like making sausages—they taste good in the end but you do not want to see them being made. Occasionally, what happens in Parliament is that lots of little bits and pieces of legislative offal get bundled up and sent to the mincer in the Regulations Review Committee. That is basically what this bill is. It is the conveyor belt for the bits and pieces that the Regulations Review Committee has got to pore over, look through the entrails of the legislative process, and make sure that the sausages we make in the next little while are fit to eat. Thank you.

This will be just a very brief call like other members have taken. The Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) is a technical bill. It is a fairly regular piece of legislation that goes through.

I would simply like to take the opportunity to reflect on the fact that from the War Pensions Act 1954 the lump-sum payments and rates of pensions and allowances are validated and confirmed by this legislation, but what—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Terrific.

—which is a great thing, and the people who receive war pensions will be very happy about that. They will be much happier when the Government finally gets on with the job of implementing legislation following the review of the War Pensions Act that was initiated by Labour and carried out by the Law Commission. That has been a long time coming. I know that veterans up and down the country will want to see that happen.

I suspect that there will be a few private pilots as well who will be interested in the levies raised by the Civil Aviation Authority. The Regulations Review Committee may find that it has more public interest in that than it might have otherwise suspected. But, otherwise, like my colleagues, I am very happy to see the passage of this legislation.

I stand to speak to the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). The reason I am taking a call is due to the Commodity Levies Act aspects of this bill. We support those commodity levies, and it always concerns me when some productive sectors sometimes choose not to. These levies are absolutely critical, both for those organisations to do advocacy for their producer members and also to help organise markets and to do research.

There is one shortfall, unfortunately, through the Commodity Levies Act and a real gap, and that is the organics sector, which does not have any call on those levies. Organics producers, who are often growing to a different management system, pay their levies because everyone should if they are producing and marketing through the various forms of marketing, from a farmers market if you are a vegetable grower, right through to the big exporters. They pay their levies, but getting research done and having control of some of the money, even proportionate to their size, does not happen. That is a real shame because there is a growing international market, and even in New Zealand we have had good growth in organics. Even in recent years when there was a bit of a downturn internationally, I think Britain was the only place with issues around the global financial crisis.

We have seen great growth in organics. We think there should be a lot more. If we did have some of that money going back into research, we might not have some of the problems we are having, even with our principal co-op in this country at the moment. There are some real issues about some of our productive systems that end up biting us on the butt, as such, because of the sheer nature of how the production happens. Some of the information around some of the supplementary feeding to bovines, to cattle, suggests that some of the bacteria that are involved around botulism, for example, are enhanced through some of the material that is being fed to animals. That needs further investigation.

But back to the productive sector—[Interruption] Excuse me? [Interruption] I go back to the productive sector, in terms of the Commodity Levies Act. We want to see the organics sector grow. It is a safe, sustainable direction for New Zealand. It supports the “clean, green” New Zealand brand—“100% Pure New Zealand”. The organics sector and best-practice organics help that no end. I will give just a couple of figures. In 2007 the organics market in New Zealand was worth $205 million, in 2009 it was $275 million, but by 2012 that had boosted up to $350 million. That is the size of the New Zealand market. Internationally, it is absolutely massive. We have got growth between 2009 and 2012, of course, of 400 percent. Those people deserve to be getting their slice of the levies, and it is something that hopefully a future Government will ensure. If we do it through a voting system, it is unlikely to happen, because people are sick of paying extra levies. We just need to find a device that will split up the levies and that ensures that the organics sector gets some.

So that is the main point. The Greens will be supporting this bill, but we want to see some changes in the future to the Commodity Levies Act. Thank you.

That speech from Steffan Browning was a wonderful advertisement for organic chicken.

I have got great pleasure in supporting the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). I look forward to it coming before the Regulations Review Committee, where we will no doubt, as Mr Lees-Galloway said, have a significant debate about it. I also just wanted to remind Mr Cunliffe that offal is the best part of the sheep—the most tasty part by a mile. Thank you.

New Zealand First is satisfied that the content of this bill, the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2), is suitable for a subordinate legislation bill. The only matter I would flag at this stage concerns Civil Aviation Authority charges. As a private pilot myself and a member of the Canterbury Aero Club, I have been contacted by many of my fellow club members expressing concern about constant increases by the Civil Aviation Authority concerning its charges. So that is something that I will be having a close look at. But subject to that, New Zealand First will be supporting the bill’s referral to the Regulations Review Committee at this stage.

I also stand in support of this bill, the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). I will welcome it with open arms when it arrives at the Regulations Review Committee this year. Last year we looked at subordinate legislation bills and thought: “Is there a more pragmatic way for us to pull on the levers and the mechanics of the Parliament to ensure that what needs to be done here can be achieved?”. We have brought this forward a little bit. It is a necessary piece of legislation. I am happy to commend it to the House.

I support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2).

I rise to take the second call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). As discussed—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Excuse me, you said “the second call”. Is this a split call, or is this a—

A split call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): A split call—a 5-minute split call.

Yes, sir.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Labour does not intend to take its call, so the Green member can take as long as she likes.

Thank you very much. As discussed, this is a reasonably straightforward bill. It is essentially a tool to ensure that regulations contained in the primary Acts are confirmed and validated. A good part of this bill has a focus on issues to do with regulations that have levies in them. It refers to the Biosecurity Act 1993, the Civil Aviation Act 1990, the Commodity Levies Act 1990, the Customs and Excise Act 1996—with regulations that prohibit the importation of 10 kilograms or more of trout or trout products for a further 3 years and increases the duties on tobacco and alcohol—the Land Transport Act 1998, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, the Social Security Act 1964, the Road User Charges Act 2012, the War Pensions Act 1954, and, of course, the Gambling Act 2003, and that is where I will focus my comments.

This bill confirms the Gambling (Problem Gambling Levy) Regulations 2013, which is the levy that is paid by gambling operators to cover the costs of problem gambling. This levy is the amount of money that is paid by casinos, pokie-machine operators, the Lotteries Commission, and the New Zealand Racing Board to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, and it is passed through the Inland Revenue Department to the Ministry of Health, and then to the agencies that deal with problem gambling.

It is pretty ironic that this bill is being put to the House today when the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill that was brought to the House by Māori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell is being discussed in the Committee of the whole House later today. That was a bill that really would have made some changes in terms of reducing the incidence of problem gambling. However, once it was brought back to the House it was essentially gutted of all its good bits that would have dealt with the problem-gambling issue.

But going back to this bill and the gambling levy, there is a consultative process undertaken before the levy is set. The gambling industry, pokie-machine owners, casino owners, and the lotteries all get involved and attempt to justify why they should not have to pay very much for problem gambling. Usually, they trot out the argument that in this country we spend more per capita on problem-gambling services than any other country in the world. Well, of course they want to pay less for the gambling levy, because that will increase their profits.

The levy is negotiated every 3 years and is based on a Ministry of Health strategy that deals with problem gambling. It is interesting that when this levy was being negotiated, the Ministry of Health recommended a substantial increase in the levy paid by the casino operators. The reason for this was that research by the Ministry of Health has shown that a person is more likely—five times more likely, in fact—to develop a problem with pokies that are located in casinos than with pokies in pubs and clubs. However, the casino industry is extremely successful in its negotiations and it has continued to pay a levy that is approximately half of what other pokie owners pay. That is an interesting fact.

Another interesting fact about this levy is that although it is determined in order to pay for problem gambling, it does not actually pay for the results of problem gambling. So, for example, this levy does not cover the food banks that are dealing on a daily basis with people who front up because they have no money because they have spent it on the pokies. This levy does not cover the crime that is associated with problem gambling, the businesses who lose money, and the not-for-profit organisations that lose money because their staff have stolen it and spent it on the pokies. This levy does not pay for that.

I guess I have made my point about this levy. We will be supporting this bill, but I did want to take the time to talk about the problem gambling levy. Thank you.

I support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). Thank you.