Roy Eric: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
Roy Eric: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13223] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 Seldom in the annals of the history of this House do we have something before us as riveting and important as the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). This matter has been handled by the Regulations Review Committee. Our chairman Dr Worth gave a very full report on our activities and I am sure the House was impressed at the standard and qualities of the chair of that committee. 
This bill is actually important. Members may think I am speaking with my tongue in cheek but the Regulations Review Committee’s examination of this subordinate legislation is significantly important. Let me explain why. Any members who care to canvass or talk to businesses or organisations in their community hear the constant cry of the excessive cost of compliance. Here today we are validating the ability to charge levies and fees and that argument that we are constantly confronted with—the cost of compliance the cost of doing business—is a significant element of that. So we need to take this matter seriously. 
It is interesting that the Regulations Review Committee has had some changeover in personnel. There has been some movement shall we say in the Labour ranks; certain people have moved off this much esteemed committee to be replaced by others. I am a little disappointed that the members of the committee from the other side of the House are reluctant to take a call today to talk about the very important issues that have come up in this subordinate legislation bill. 
 You see it really fits into delegated responsibility. I think it is important that members are aware that it would be highly impractical if every time a fee were struck or a levy set a whole bill came before the House went to a select committee and came back here. So these issues are grouped and as other members speaking on this bill have said we are validating about a dozen different provisions on this occasion. It is important that we have that delegated responsibility and that we can deal with these issues in a group. 
But I need to say that one of the concerns of the Regulations Review Committee is that there are more delegated responsibilities out there than there are statutes. One of the things we are currently doing is to review the pertinence and relevance of all of those delegated responsibilities. There are some out there that do not have sunset clauses so they just carry on existing. Today we are dealing with the ones that will fall off the perch and will not continue to exist unless we actually validate them. 
Part 1 sets out the processes by which the decisions are made. That is quite clear. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Really? 
ERIC ROY 
: I can see that that Minister is also concerned that members from his team are not explaining these relevant and pertinent bits to the House at large. Part 2 contains nine different pieces of legislation that we are validating. The first one in clause 7 is the Animal Products Act 1999. A fee structure is set so that the Animal Products Act can operate. Not only are we validating the collection of these fees but also we are setting in place a process by which we can have some confidence that animal products are safe and adequate to use in a very important part of New Zealand’s industry the agricultural industry. 
I should talk for just a little bit about the Commodity Levies Act which covers the way in which— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Oh God! 
ERIC ROY 
: I can see that Mr Woolerton is very interested in this. The Commodity Levies Act sets out a process by which the people involved can be canvassed as to whether they are in favour of a levy being struck. One of the concerns I have about this process involves the people who participate. If members look at the Commodity Levies Act they will see that a number of producer groups have been canvassed under that Act like the pipfruit growers. They might strike a levy this year for all suppliers to be— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They’ve got the pip with Labour! 
ERIC ROY 
: Do not get the pip please I say to Mr Williamson. It might be that the levy this year will be X. The pipfruit growers might have 951 suppliers—I do not know whether that is the number but it could be that—and it might be that as few as 90-odd or about 10 percent respond. We need to presume that if there were some concerns the suppliers would vote against the levy. Participation in the vote is frequently lower than 30 percent. It is about striking the cost of a levy that the various suppliers will have to fund. 
The list here includes the Animal Products Act which I have mentioned and the Biosecurity Act 1993 which has a couple of validations in here that I find quite interesting. One of them is the Biosecurity (Gypsy Moth Levy) Order of 2004. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I didn’t know that was in there! 
ERIC ROY 
: Well exactly! Members will know the furore that took place when the painted apple moth was treated with spray in Auckland and this kind of levy allows for the management of that sort of thing. This particular levy allows for the payment of a fee to be used to set up all the little traps so that if there is an incursion of gypsy moths we are able to find out that they have come in. This levy is quite important as it provides for the first line of defence in our biosecurity so that our forests are safe. If we have an incursion then it can be dealt to. 
The second validation under the Biosecurity Act that I find quite interesting is the Biosecurity (Varroa (South Island) Beekeeper Levy) Order of 2005. Members will know that varroa came into New Zealand about 5 years ago— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Spell it! 
ERIC ROY 
: I can see that the member is also concerned that Labour members are not taking a call on this particular issue. When varroa came into New Zealand it was agreed that if it ever got to the South Island it would need to be dealt to. So all the bee-keepers in the South Island—separate from those in the North Island—struck a levy under the Commodity Levies Act that would be used to deal with the problem when it occurred. But did it— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What happened? 
ERIC ROY 
: What happened when it was found in Nelson? The Minister for Biosecurity hummed and hawed— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Hummed and hawed? 
ERIC ROY 
: Yes he hummed and hawed and nothing was done. We have here a rollover of legislation to deal with the incursion of varroa in the South Island when it is already there! We have a Minister for Biosecurity who is doing absolutely nothing about resolving that issue. That is a fascinating little insight into the Commodity Levies Act in relation to the Biosecurity Act; it is achieving very very little. 
As I have mentioned this bill is an important part of what we do in terms of the process of striking fees and levies. We should not take it lightly. It is a significant step that takes place every year in a number of different ways and involves a number of organisations. The Regulations Review Committee provides a check and a balance; it makes sure that the proper process has been adhered to. Frequently that committee writes and ask questions to determine the level of consultation how many people voted and what the process was. Members now have to sign off that review and National is supporting this legislation this afternoon.