Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Please leave quietly. Keep going.

You have a bit that you have to do, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, sorry—they were so loud I missed it. If the member said he presented a statement, I will tell him that it’s published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a second time.

It’s almost Christmas, and therefore the annual fixture of the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill rolls around on the parliamentary calendar. This is an annual event in the House. The purpose—

💬 Chris Bishop: Yeah, a great day—a banner day.

—exactly—is to confirm by an Act of Parliament regulations that would otherwise lapse at a particular date, and we do that under the Legislation Act of 2019. The second reading debate that we’re doing now is the only opportunity that the House as a whole has to scrutinise and debate the provisions of the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill. The first reading is done without debate; it then goes to a select committee. The second reading debate happens after the select committee, and then straight after this we will do the third reading, which is also taken without debate. The House does need to pass this bill, as it always does, before we adjourn for the Christmas holidays. Any levies and duties that have been paid under any of the regulations that we are confirming that are not confirmed by the due date would potentially have to be returned to those who had paid them.

The regulations that are confirmed by the bill were created under eight different Acts of Parliament this year. They cover subjects ranging from the levies on foodstuffs to support New Zealand’s biosecurity, adjustments to the alcohol and tobacco duties, and increases to benefits. The range of secondary legislation covered by this year’s bill is similar, in line with those in previous confirmation bills. The details of each of them are set out in the legislative statement that I just presented to the House.

So, finally, I want to acknowledge the very important work of the Regulations Review Committee, who once again have done a very thorough job of scrutinising this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of National to give a reasonably straightforward response by way of confirmation—well, part of the confirmation thereof. I do also wear the hat that is the chair of the Regulations Review Committee, so please allow me in that capacity to say that the committee has enjoyed its work in relation to this, as well as the other considerable body of work that we’ve undertaken this year. It would be remiss not to put on record, in case this is my last opportunity before the Christmas break, that I’ve greatly enjoyed working with fellow committee members: deputy chair Rachel Brooking and her various colleagues of the Labour Party; also the ACT and Green members. Sadly, we don’t have a Te Paati Māori representative, but I do want to note the collegial and constructive atmosphere of that committee in making such consideration as we have for this bill, and particularly as well to acknowledge our wonderful clerk’s team and also the advisers, the legislative counsel, who have supported us so well in this and our other work in 2021.

The Leader of the House has given a good summary of the way that the House will treat this legislation and, of course, the overall philosophy behind it. Suffice to say that, you know, we regard it as an important principle that while there is some room to move for the executive to pass certain regulations, notwithstanding that, within a certain period of time, a grace period, if you like, it’s appropriate the House has a chance to fail to confirm those if it wishes. But on this occasion, certainly so far as National is concerned, we wouldn’t see any need to pull that particular trigger, even to the extent that we in minority would be able to do so.

So just a brief comment on a couple of the issues just by way of flavour as much as anything. We’ve said that confirmation is warranted of orders made under the Biosecurity Act, having communicated with the Ministry for Primary Industries. The beekeeping levy—we heard there that notwithstanding that there were some increases to levies there that the majority of those whom the ministry have reached out to and sought feedback from—I think I’m right in saying “apiarists”—had expressed their support for that levy. I suppose there’s an aspect of taxation versus representation—not strictly taxation. I’ll be honest and say I haven’t quite got my head around the difference between taxes and levies. We are still—probably fair to say—grappling with that as a committee. But nevertheless, the general principle is that those who have been required to pay money should have at least some say in the way that those levies are set.

Under the Commodity Levies Act—similarly milk solids and feijoas orders—we were interested there not only in the levies themselves but such aspects as how they should be paid, how they should be spent, collection of records, and dispute resolution mechanisms as well. Again, a little bit of democracy in action, and we were advised that some 69 percent of those who had voted, who’d been interested parties to participate in that consultation, had agreed with that, and they knew of no reason that they shouldn’t be confirmed. So somewhat reminiscent of the good old-fashioned matrimonial procedure, “If anyone knows any reason that these two should not be wed, etc.”, and they didn’t know of any reason and nor did we, so we have no hesitation therefore in saying that we recommend that the House support that one—or confirm it, rather.

Under the Customs and Excise Act, a couple of items there: tobacco products and alcoholic beverages—perhaps topical for some at this time of year. So we weren’t looking at the policy intent behind the imposition of levies, for example, as we’ve been told to raise revenue but also discourage consumption. That’s not within our remit but it was relevant to understand that because it was the view of Customs that that public policy aim was understood, that policy intent wasn’t referenced in the order. We thought that was a reasonable point, along with the fact that there had been public consultation when the provision for annual indexation had been considered by Parliament in 2018.

Under the Fisheries Act—an order there for quota management areas for pāua. Of course, without quota management for pāua, there would be absolute pāua and that would tend to corrupt stocks absolutely—

💬 Hon Member: Ha, ha!

I’ll move on. There were some other various orders and pieces of legislation on which those were to be made. Perhaps the only one I would just note, the PACER-Plus agreement, so-called—that’s the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, so a bit of a foreign affairs - type element there, and really just enabling that agreement that had been made to be reflected in New Zealand’s regulations in that amendment order.

So that’s, I think, sufficient detail—perhaps more, but it’s too late if that’s how you feel, Mr Speaker, or if anyone else does, for that matter. So I’ll conclude my remarks on the bill saying that, of course, we do recommend that the rest of the House also join us in confirming those. And, again, thanks to all those involved with the Regulations Review Committee consideration, including, of course, those various Government agencies with whom we interacted to satisfy ourselves that the correct procedures had been followed.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading