Ardern Shane: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Shane: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18235. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) as well. I know that the bill will be well handled in the Regulations Review Committee chaired by our very able colleague Dr Richard Worth. I will just touch on a couple of issues that are of interest in this legislation.  
I refer specifically to clause 10 “Customs and Excise Act 1996” where subclause (a) states “Customs Import Prohibition (Trout) Order 2007 (SR 2007/298)”. When I look at the Order Paper I notice the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon David Parker languishing down at No. 51. I inform the House that when I arrived here—I think it was in the forty-fourth Parliament briefly when I first came here—that proposed legislation was sitting on the Order Paper at I think about No. 51 or 52 or somewhere in that order. Here we are today in the closing hours of the forty-eighth Parliament and I see that the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill is still on the Order Paper. It would be an interesting thing given that we have the Leader of the House here with us to find out whether the Leader of the House intends with similar legislation to this bill to bring forward the conservation of trout bill in this Parliament. Otherwise I am sure it will turn up at about No. 51 52 or 53—or something like that—in the forty-ninth Parliament.  
There is an interesting process on bills like this one and I notice that this is the No. 4 bill so I presume that it happens annually. Therefore for the last 4 years we have had a rollover provision—in this case the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4). It is a useful vehicle I think for the House to tidy up and validate bits of legislation that potentially would roll over—or will indeed roll over—and collapse if that did not happen. The only question I guess that comes from that is whether this is a good way to deal with legislation in general. If it is why are there not more Acts of Parliament that have—I am not sure whether this is the right legal term or not—a sunset clause in them? Such Acts would therefore roll over on a regular basis and then be subjected to a process such as that gone through in the Regulations Review Committee where the original intent of the Act or the reasons for the Act in the first instance would be able to be scrutinised and it would be deemed whether they were still valid.  
There will be an interesting situation going forward because I know that a colleague of mine not too far from where I am right now has some intentions in the future to bring about an opportunity for legislation to go through a filter whereby the cost of implementing that legislation versus the potential benefit from it will be scrutinised. This type of bill might be a vehicle for that to take place—or a part of that vehicle.  
I would also like to pick up on a comment the Minister made about the changes to the Road User Charges Act 1977 and to say that this is actually a good move. For too long although most people thought excise tax was taken for the purpose of roading it has not been spent for that purpose. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.