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 second time. The bill confirms and validates 24 orders or regulations made under nine different Acts. The bill must be enacted by 31 December 2013 to avoid subordinate legislation lapsing. The bill was introduced on 29 July 2013 and was referred to the Regulations Review Committee on 6 August. The committee asked the six relevant Government agencies responsible for administering the legislation to explain why confirmation or validation of the orders is warranted. The committee was satisfied with the responses it received and presented its report on 27 September, recommending that the bill be passed without amendment.

The committee regularly notes that the current process for considering Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bills allows for only limited scrutiny, and has recommended that these bills be introduced earlier in the year than has been usual in recent years. The Government was very conscious of this and introduced this bill in July, with its first reading in August. The Government will continue to work to improve the process for considering this type of bill when we progress the next Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill in 2014. I thank the select committee for its thoughtful and prompt consideration of this bill. In particular, I put on record my thanks to the former member the Hon Lianne Dalziel for her work over the years on this committee.

There are 24 orders or regulations listed in the bill that are to be confirmed or validated. They have been made under nine different Acts. I shall provide a brief summary of each instrument confirmed or validated by the bill for the benefit of the House. Four orders made under the Biosecurity Act 1993 are confirmed. These relate to a levy on kiwifruit grown in New Zealand for export; amendments to two orders to refer to the new management agency, TBfree New Zealand; and changes to industry cost recovery for costs associated with the joint border management system. Second, an order under the Civil Aviation Act 1990 updating passenger levies and participation levies payable by aviation operators to the Civil Aviation Authority is confirmed.

Ten commodity levies are confirmed. These impose levies relating to peonies; apples and pears; Foveaux Strait dredge oysters; pāua; rock lobster; onions; potatoes; vegetables and fruit; avocadoes; and mussels, oysters, and salmon. Each levy is payable to an industry organisation to finance activities of benefit to the industry. Three orders made under the Customs and Excise Act 1996 are confirmed. Prohibitions regarding the importation of trout and trout products are continued. Rates of excise and excise equivalent duties imposed on tobacco products and alcoholic beverages are adjusted annually to reflect the movement in the Consumers Price Index. This bill confirms the duties that were imposed on 1 January 2013 and 1 July 2013 respectively. Regulations under the Gambling Act 2003 specifying the problem gambling levy rates for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2016 are confirmed, and one order for confirmation provides for registration and licensing of motor vehicles under the Land Transport Act 1998.

Two orders made pursuant to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Social Security Act 1964 are confirmed. One of the orders increases the rates of the young parent payment for a single young person with a dependent child aged 16 to 17 years and living with or being financially supported by a parent or guardian. The other order increases most benefits, pensions, and allowances to reflect a 0.61 percent increase in the New Zealand Consumers Price Index from the December 2011 quarter to the December 2012 quarter. It also increases the amounts of funeral grants payable under the Social Security Act in respect of people who die on or after 1 April 2013. The order also makes some further supplementary increases to the level of superannuation.

One set of regulations made under the Road User Charges Act 2012 is confirmed. These regulations specify rates of charges for distance licences for road-user charges vehicles, and in respect of additional weight carried by combination vehicles operating under an additional licence.

Finally, the bill confirms an order increasing war pensions, lump sum payments, and allowances in line with an increase in the Consumers Price Index. The order also makes further supplementary increases to the level of veterans pensions to honour the Government’s commitments in relation to the level of veterans pensions. Thank you.

It gives me pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill No 2. I appreciate the comments of the Deputy Leader of the House and her reflections on the work of the Hon Lianne Dalziel in the Regulations Review Committee. She has indeed been a hugely important contributor to that committee. This sort of bill, a Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill, comes round once a year to the House, and it is, essentially, designed to bring some parliamentary scrutiny to those items that would otherwise expire if the dates of their legislation were not validated or confirmed. In other words, there would be a rate or a regulation that would apply up to a certain date, then it would expire, and, if this kind of bill or measure were not put forward to the House, then it would not continue. It is an administrative measure but it is a really important one in that what this House is doing by confirming and validating the subordinate legislation that we are addressing in this bill is actually confirming that the policy behind the intention of the regulations is actually still valid. So it would be possible, for example, if this House were so minded and the Regulations Review Committee had recommended differently, for votes to be split on this issue because there might have been a debate over whether or not the policy still remained intact.

This type of bill is something that is debated annually in Parliament. It is designed to prevent the lapsing of certain subordinate legislation. When this kind of bill comes to the House it goes to the Regulations Review Committee. The Deputy Leader of the House, Tolley, traversed some of the time frame for that: the bill was introduced in July of this year, it was referred to the Regulations Review Committee at the beginning of August, and at the end of September it was referred back to the House. I chair the Regulations Review Committee, and I thank the members of the Regulations Review Committee for their consideration of this bill. What we had to do was write to the six Government departments with responsibility for administering the orders and regulations covered in the bill, and invite them to explain why the orders and regulations should be confirmed and, where pertinent, validated. We also asked the agencies why the confirmation and validation provisions were originally included in the Acts under which the orders and regulations were made. In every case, I am pleased to report that confirmation, or confirmation and validation, was considered necessary by the departments to prevent the orders and regulations from lapsing and thus ceasing to be legally enforceable.

The reasons for these confirmations and validations include things like alteration to the rates of benefits and allowances, including such things as increases in war pensions, as the Deputy Leader of the House outlined in her initial comments, and the ability to prescribe fees and collect levies. The good thing about it is that we got the responses back from all the departments, and I would like to place on record my thanks to all the departments who responded quickly and promptly to the requests from the Regulations Review Committee. We found no reason that the orders and regulations should not be confirmed or validated, and on that basis I think the House can have some confidence that it is desirable to proceed with this legislation without any contravention.

It is good to note the number of pieces of legislation that are actually impacted by this bill. The Deputy Leader of the House outlined particular instruments, whether they be regulations or the things that the regulations applied to—the various orders and regulations that were considered by this bill—so I will not traverse those. But it is worthwhile to note, for the benefit of people listening, the range of pieces of legislation covered by this: the Biosecurity Act of 1993, the Civil Aviation Act of 1990, the Commodity Levies Act of 1990, the Customs and Excise Act of 1996, the Gambling Act of 2003, the Land Transport Act of 1998, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, the Social Security Act of 1964, the Road User Charges Act of 2012, and the War Pensions Act of 1954. This bill is administrative, but it is also important that the House gets a chance to scrutinise this and to accept the Regulations Review Committee’s recommendation for it to proceed unamended.

There is one final point I would like to make, which is something that is mentioned in the Regulations Review Committee report. The Regulations Review Committee in October 2012 reported to the House on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill of that time, 2012, and asked that such a bill should be considered earlier in the parliamentary year, preferably on 1 August or as close to that date as possible. The Deputy Leader of the House said that the Government took that seriously, and, indeed, it did. I want to register my appreciation of the Government’s willingness to move more quickly—in fact, to introduce the bill on 29 July, so in advance of 1 August and 1 month earlier than the equivalent bill in 2012. But we also encourage the House to consider carefully whether the streamlined procedure, which was recommended by the Standing Orders Committee for revision bills, might also be applied to bills seeking confirmation and validation of subordinate legislation. That procedure was discussed in detail in the October 2012 report. The Regulations Review Committee of 2013 still thinks that this procedure would make the scrutiny of bills seeking validation and confirmation of subordinate legislation more effective. We have written to the Standing Orders Committee drawing that discussion to its attention so that it may act on that in the future. I support the bill.

It gives me great pleasure to take a short call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). It contains two or three issues very close to my heart: biosecurity, the commodities levy, and retirement in the future.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: After only 3 years?

Retirement income I am talking about, Trevor. I wanted to just make very brief mention of the retirement of the—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Yet another announcement. The member’s hardly had time to make an impression. The member hasn’t made an impression.

I must point out I am a better driver than that member. I noticed him very nearly cleaning up one of his Wellington citizens today.

I just want to comment very briefly on the retirement from the Regulations Review Committee of our extremely valuable member Katrina Shanks. I know that when she leaves this House she will miss one thing in particular, and that is her attendance on the Regulations Review Committee. I want to congratulate her on the part she has played in that. I think it is wonderful. I commend this bill to the House.

Like the previous member, Ian McKelvie, I too take great pleasure in taking a call, hopefully slightly longer than the previous member’s, on this very important piece of legislation, the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). We can laugh and chortle and giggle away at these administrative and somewhat technical procedures, but, amongst other things, I think they invite us to reflect on the regulatory process and the process of validation and confirmation.

When we look through the list of regulations that call for validation, there are some very important ones there, not the least of which, I think, is the Commodity Levies (Paeonies) Order of 2012. Of course, the Commodity Levies (Paeonies) Order relates to the need for those who are trading in the vast volume of flowers known as peonies to be levied for that—those, at least, selling more than $2,500 worth in a year. I do not know how many peonies that is. It sounds like a lot of peonies. Those who sell more than that are required, therefore, to be levied, and that levy is collected by none other than the very august institution known as the New Zealand Paeony Society Inc.—incorporated, I see, only in October last year.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s called flower power.

It is a new form of flower power, and I am most intrigued that the New Zealand Paeony Society should be established. I do not recall seeing it notified in the Gazette anywhere or advertised. If only I had known, I might happily have joined, because I think this body offers not only the opportunity to collect a levy on behalf of the very many peony growers, but indeed the opportunity to establish a fighting force, a genuine flower power of a society, which can advocate on behalf of all peony growers, and indeed all peonies, as needed. Most important, it allows the New Zealand Paeony Society to conduct the relevant research that it is empowered to do under the commodity order. There is no other by-product associated with peonies. They are not like poppies, for example, where the dry seed can be broken down and used for other purposes. Peonies are a unique breed of flower. They are, I think, a perennial—or they could be annual. I have never quite understood the difference between the two, but there is a yearly cycle to them, which makes them fall under one category or the other.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Where’s Maggie when you need her? The only time she could have been useful.

Perhaps the honourable member Maggie Barry will take a call, and she will be able to enlighten us on just the importance of the continuation of the Commodity Levies (Paeonies) Order 2012.

I just wanted to make the point that these commodity levies are very important. As we develop our commodity production base and develop our export capability and capacity in these new horticultural products, then obviously the commodity levies play a very important role, because they not only allow the relevant industry group—in this case, the New Zealand Paeony Society—to collect levies, but also give it the means to undertake very important research, hopefully in collaboration with State organisations like Callaghan Innovation. I am sure that my learned colleague Dr Megan Woods will be interested to know that the New Zealand Paeony Society exists, not only for the collection of levies but also for the conduct of research into the development of the peony industry, peony strands, and peony forms.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Annuals die every year. All that is left is a seed, whereas perennials are a bit like us—we go on forever.

Who would have thought after that interpolation that Trevor Mallard was an accounting teacher, not a science teacher? But there we are. He has many strings to his bow.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: And I can use Google.

And he can use Google.

So, where was I? In this most important contribution, at this most important time of the year—I do not take this lightly, as we undertake this important task that has been blessed not only by the Deputy Leader of the House, Anne Tolley, but also by no less a powerful force than the Regulations Review Committee, which Ms Tolley herself acknowledged has a very important role. It did so under the tutelage of Lianne Dalziel. It is presently under Maryan Street’s leadership, and I think it is doing very important work—work that, Ian McKelvie noted, Katrina Shanks is going to miss extraordinarily. I know, having seen her earlier today and congratulated her on her new and very important role in the funeral industry—not a dying industry but, like the peony industry, one with a great future—that she, in fact, enjoyed the time she spent on the Regulations Review Committee, making the very important contributions she did, including ensuring that this legislation, the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2), including confirming the place of commodity levies on the peony industry, continues uninterrupted and remains continuous. That is important, too.

I note also that other commodity levies that are to be continued include the commodity levies on avocadoes. So the Avocado Growers Association will be able to continue to play its very important role in developing strands of avocados. I think the avocado is described as one of the other love fruits of the world. They also are now to be levied. Anybody growing avocados for sale, not just domestically but for export as well, is levied so that the Avocado Growers Association can continue its very important research work, possibly also in conjunction with Callaghan Innovation, maybe with the Ministry for Primary Industries, maybe with other—

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Plant and Food Research.

—Crown research institutes such as Plant and Food Research, and maybe with HortResearch. I do not know where it stands in the greater scheme of things. But we begin to see that if we take a piece of legislation like this, we look at the detail of it, and we unpick it, we find an entire network of horticultural research, innovation, levy collection, export development, and growth. I think it means that in our nation, with its commodity growers and their commodity levies on their produce, we are in good hands. So on that basis I am quite happy, again, like Maryan Street, to confirm Labour’s blessing on this bill.

One other point I just want to make is that I note one of the other pieces of regulation that has been confirmed as well, the Gambling (Problem Gambling Levy) Regulations. In a year in which we have had the debate on a very unfortunate piece of legislation, a very retrograde piece of legislation, indicative of a Government that is throwing caution to the wind when it comes to gambling and promoting a more destructive approach to gambling, here we are being called upon now to validate or at least to confirm and to continue the Gambling (Problem Gambling Levy) Regulations 2013. Who would have thought that so early in the life of those regulations we would be called upon to confirm them? And who would have thought, in light of the very fierce and very unfortunate debate and the circumstances of that debate, we would be called upon today to confirm the continuation of a levy on casino operators to deal with problem gambling.

But at least we have it. It really underscores the very point that I think Opposition parties were making. If we are going to have activities like gambling, not only do we need to retain our right to regulate them but also we need to make sure that those who are in that industry are contributing responsibly and constructively, to ensure that those activities do not cause any unnecessary or unforeseen community destruction and disarray. So it is good that those regulations are continuing, like many others, under this piece of legislation, and we are quite happy to support it.

I rise to speak to the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). As with the previous speakers, the Green Party supports this bill, and the commodity levies are a significant part of it that comes to our attention. The first one mentioned here is the Biosecurity (Psa-V—Kiwifruit Levy) Order. That has obviously been very, very important, as that industry, the kiwifruit industry, suffered so significantly with Psa. We do need to look more deeply into the origins of Psa and at what parts of the industry were involved with that, how our biosecurity system allowed it in, and how our biosecurity system maybe did not react to it quickly enough. It is great that we are seeing an improvement with kiwifruit now, as there seems to be a resurgence in optimism in that industry, as alternatives to the originally most effective fruit come along. Also, there is a levy around bovine tuberculosis. That has been put to great use and there is a reduction in TB. So it has been shown to have been put to good use.

One levy that I would like to reflect on is the Biosecurity (System Entry Levy) Amendment Order. Although we do need major improvements in joint border management, it is very, very good to see some redress to some of the border control cuts that have happened, that those aspects have come back now, and that we have got some improvement. The Minister for Primary Industries was out promoting those new dogs and some teams working on border control. They clearly do not go far enough.

One concern that I have with this is that the Government at the moment seems to be throwing its arms up over two of the more recent incursions. One of them is one of the Theileria species or varieties or strains that is going through the North Island at the moment. It is something that could be looked at significantly more for eradication. And whether this levy is not adequate or whether the Government’s budget is not adequate, at the moment that disease, which causes anaemia in cattle, is racing through and is expected to cover all of the Waikato by the end of summer, while the Ministry for Primary Industries is saying that we are in the response phase. Do we need bigger levies for that? I am not sure, but something has to give, and we need to have a far better response so these sorts of things are jumped on, so people are not sitting on their hands, and so they are not doing reports while a disease that will probably become endemic in this country gets hold. The great white butterfly in Nelson—we are waiting to see from this response whether the industry is going to make a call and whether that butterfly is going to be exterminated and eradicated or not. It should be eradicated, of course, and efforts should be going on there. If these levies are not adequate and if the budget is not adequate, something has to give.

The levies carry on to the commodity levies. There are levies for peonies, as has been mentioned, and for pipfruit. These are put to very good use. I see in The Orchardist magazine that I have got here that in fact it has a section called “Your levies at work”. Some of that is particularly good. There is stuff around biosecurity leadership, Nuffield scholars, and other things mentioned in there, including pest control, although some of the pest control is, unfortunately, supporting some pesticides that should be pulled. How the sector chooses to use its levy is up to it, but it is absolutely critical that each sector is involved with levies. It is always disappointing when we see sectors that choose not to vote in a levy for their sectors, where they could actually get abreast some of the issues that they have.

The Commodity Levies (Foveaux Strait Dredge Oysters) Order will be something close to our hearts. That is an important one because the actual industry itself has damaged the benthos, the sea floor, in that area, and there was damage consequently to the cod fishery there too. So, again, we hope that the industry will get in, make very good use of its levy, and look for ways that are a lot less harmful to its own fishery.

There is another levy here for the pāua industry. It is very intent on improving management of that industry and looking at some breeding techniques and maybe seeding in there. That is another good use of a sector levy. The rock lobster people have got a great name, and something that we can all look at is the very successful use of a levy there, which apparently has got a very sustainable and well-managed fishery of the rock lobsters. The potatoes levies—that industry has got a major issue with psyllid. Everybody’s potatoes here have more pesticides in them at the moment, unfortunately, because of this very difficult pest called the psyllid. It is also through the tomato and capsicum industries. Because of the nature of it and the lack of good controls—apart from chemicals, it seems—we are all having more pesticide residues in our food. Again, that levy is being used to look for biological controls, and for nets, in some cases, for some of the crops, and hopefully will not only be a benefit to the industry in terms of saving the huge amount of money that it is spending on pesticides but also will be good for the rest of the country in terms of consumers.

The mussels, oysters, and salmon commodity levies are ones close to my heart and to my friends in Marlborough. As we speak there is a visiting Scottish expert from the salmon industry in Scotland meeting with the people of Marlborough, where it has been a major contentious issue—the salmon farming and the effects on the environment there. The Marlborough District Council, with its regional council responsibilities, never had somebody there with a marine biology background. So here we have major environmental effects, some of which have been well documented in terms of what is happening on the seafloor under these salmon farms. It is in the public space, there is no rental on it to the public, and there is no money going from the industry to the local council to do research. So I am hoping that that levy, of course, on farmed mussels, oysters, and salmon, to be paid for by the fish farmer, will be very wisely used to ensure that their activities are actually way more sustainable than they are currently.

I use as an example of that the fact that the Marlborough District Council, doing what it could, looked at each of the farms that are there in existence at the moment, and each one of them had failed its consent conditions. The expert from Scotland did a peer review and said that two of them should be shut straight away and the others all should have reduced feed. Those are the real deep issues that we need to be looking at through these levies.

We will support this bill. We hope that there will be more commodity levies extracted from different sectors that will help work on the issues of biosecurity and environmental management. But at this point we are pleased to see this bill progress through the House. Thank you.

That was an excellent contribution as to everything that the Regulations Review Committee is not about—that is, policy. The member Steffan Browning has given a great dissertation on all the ins and outs of levies and commodities from the policy perspective, but that is not what this bill, the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2), actually deals with. This is a perfunctory piece of legislation. It is very much a legislative process to ensure that levies that would otherwise expire do not expire. So the member may do well to actually remember what the function of the Regulations Review Committee is when he helicopters in there to battle away on his policy front, because that is not a matter for that committee to deal with.

Just very, very briefly—the committee did look very closely last year at how we could actually trim back and rationalise as best we can the valuable time of this House in terms of performing this very important function. I want to commend the Government departments that have reported their contributions earlier to allow the committee to scrutinise the need for their legislation in this bill. That has meant that the Government and this House have been able to progress their work far more quickly and efficiently. I think that there are probably other ways that we can help provide efficiencies for the benefit of this House with this particular legislation.

I will not take any more of the House’s time. I certainly commend the bill and the work of the members of the select committee in doing their best to ensure that these regulations are dealt with appropriately. Thank you.

I just want to make a short contribution on this Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). As, I am sure, earlier speakers would have said, the purpose of this bill is to confirm and, in some cases, validate subordinate legislation made under various Acts. In passing this bill the House is, effectively, approving the subordinate legislation specified in this bill and allowing it to continue in force. Essentially, this lies around a series of levies and other matters that, as Mike Sabin said, in the absence of this legislation would not be able to carry on.

Just some interesting points—the orders under the Land Transport Act refer to motor vehicle registration. I note that the bulk of motor vehicle registration is actually the accident compensation levy that motor vehicle owners pay into ACC. ACC recommended to the Government that it reduce the motor vehicle levy, just as it made recommendations that the Government could reduce a range of ACC levies.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The member’s Government put them up.

Well, it was Nick Smith who put the ACC levies up when he created a phoney crisis in the Accident Compensation Corporation. He overcharged New Zealanders. He caused New Zealand taxpayers to pay far more in their ACC levies than what was necessary, and the result was that this year ACC made a surplus of nearly $5 billion.

Of course, the reason the Government refused before now to reduce the levies that Nick Smith—who interjected on me—raised when he was Minister is, of course, that that ACC surplus contributes to the Government’s surplus and the Government has set itself a target of getting the books back into surplus by the 2014-15 financial year. It has failed to do that through economic growth. When New Zealanders saw that target they assumed that what this Government was planning to do was to grow the New Zealand economy, grow the number of jobs, and get more people back into work so that they are paying tax, and that would be the way the Government would reverse the phenomenal amount of borrowing that has occurred since it took office. But it has failed to do that, and so it has found all sorts of other mechanisms by which to artificially inflate the Government’s books and make it appear that the Government will have reached surplus by 2014-15.

One of those is, of course, the ACC levies, which Nick Smith put up. Why I reference that in this legislation is that—we are talking about the motor vehicle account—that was actually one that the Government decided it would not reduce. So although there will be some election bribes next year for the work account and the earners account—it could have happened last year, but they have been put off until next year because that is election year—unfortunately, the poor old motor vehicle owner will not get any relief there.

This is an issue that I know does concern a lot of people, because, for instance, if you own a motorcycle—I know the Hon Phil Goff is very interested in this issue—or if you own more than one motorcycle, then you are paying quite a lot in your ACC levies. Many motorbike riders quite rightly point out that you cannot actually ride more than one bike at a time and, therefore, it might be inequitable for them to have to pay those extremely high levies. Certainly, there was never any suggestion that motorbike owners would have their motor vehicle registration levy reduced, even though some other folks would.

One other really interesting idea that the Government is trying to push through—although it seems that it is now having to do a little bit more work to justify it—is this idea that if you are rich and you own a new car, then you can pay less on your motor vehicle registration than someone who is on a middle income or on a lower income and who can afford only an older car, as if that was going to incentivise people to buy newer, safer cars. I mean, it is just ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that with the income gap widening under this Government, with more and more people finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, there is no way on earth that they are going to go and buy the latest model Mercedes-Benz so that they can get a reduction on their ACC levy. It just shows you how completely out of touch with reality this Government actually is—that somehow having a lower ACC levy would incentivise people to head down to their nearest BMW dealer and buy the latest model car.

This bill, I know, is simply subordinate legislation that allows certain things to carry on, but it is important that, although as legislators we pass this legislation, we understand the implications and the variety of options that were in front of the Government when it considered this legislation. On a number of those options, frankly, the Government does get it wrong because it always puts its mates ahead of the interests of all regular, ordinary New Zealanders.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading