Worth Richard: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:872] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 We are in the process of passing the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill which National supports. I would like to record my appreciation on behalf of the National Party for the very kind comments made to some of its members in the Committee stage by Mr Woolerton. I also express what I am sure will be the position that in the unlikely event that the two members nominated for special mention should ever seek to leave this Parliament they will be able to use the comments that he made as a valuable testimonial for their future gainful employment. 
In accordance with the parliamentary process this legislation was referred to the Regulations Review Committee and the committee had the task of judging whether it was appropriate that this legislation be recommended to the House for further passage. To do that it was necessary for the committee to seek the views of the relevant Government departments as to whether validation and confirmation of a number of orders was appropriate. It is worthy of note that three particular orders made in the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill are both validated and confirmed. The balance of the orders are simply confirmed. 
But this validation is not the cure-all that it might seem to be on its face. Clause 4 provides that the validations to prevent expiry do not cure invalidity. The actual wording of the provision is: “In the light of their purpose the validations effected by sections 13 15 and 16 do not—(a) express an intention to give legislative force to the provisions of the enactments validated; or (b) apply to any reason for invalidating any of those enactments; or (c) override any presumption that would otherwise apply to any of those enactments.” That particular clause is densely written and turgidly worded but its effect is quite clear. Its effect is to preserve intact the ability of those who wish to challenge the validity of these orders to do so on administrative law grounds. 
 In Part 2 the parliamentary counsel has identified a number of orders and the legislation under which they were enacted that are singled out for confirmation and validation. It is perhaps a somewhat unusual process in that generally legislation endures until it is repealed but in this bill we have an example where unless the legislation is confirmed it will lapse. So it would be the case that the Biosecurity (Gypsy Moth Levy) Order and the Biosecurity (Varroa (South Island) Beekeeper Levy) Order would have no continued legal force but for the passage of this bill. 
In the course of the debate I have made a number of points and I will highlight two of them. The first is to refer briefly to the inquiry by the Regulations Review Committee which made a recommendation to try to draw into line with Australian practice and authority this tricky issue of what a regulation is. Because although these documents that we are confirming and validating are in most cases said not to be regulations they in fact are. It is a constant search by the Regulations Review Committee particularly in the exercise of its complaints jurisdiction to determine whether a particular subordinate legislation is or is not a regulation. 
The second point I have made is that at least in one case relating to the varroa levy there are these curious rights of conscientious objection. We generally think of rights of conscientious objection being exercised in a context that is substantially related to someone not being prepared to serve in war—or in any event as a defence against compulsory conscription which is no longer in place in this country. It seems to me most anomalous that there should be preserved in this legislation this conscientious objection provision which is contained in clause 18. I am aware it is in other legislation and the Minister responsible for this bill has suggested that the Commodity Levies Act has similar provisions. But why is there a conscientious objection right in respect of the Biosecurity (Varroa (South Island) Beekeeper Levy) Order 2005 yet there is not in respect of broadly comparable legislation related to the Biosecurity (Gypsy Moth) Levy) Order 2004? 
It is right to say that those two orders are made under different sections of the Biosecurity Act—in the one case under section 137 and in the other under section 90. It is also right to say that one such statutory provision is concerned with the funding of services and another is concerned with the funding of strategies but those points in themselves I would contend are not a sufficient reason for the inclusion of rights of conscientious objection in respect of one order and no such rights of conscientious objection in another. 
I would like to say something very briefly about the varroa bee mite picking up on wise and careful words used by Mr Tisch in the course of the Committee stage. Indeed I had not appreciated until I stood in the Chamber today just what a fund of knowledge on this important legislation Mr Tisch had within his breast. It seems to be the case in varroa bee mite issues that in the absence of treatment an infested bee colony typically dies when the varroa population reaches a certain level. From the work that Mr Tisch has shown me this threshold level appears to differ between locations and seasons. So we are looking at a range of issues in the context of varroa such as the cumulative effects of decreased weight of adult bees decreased lifespan of adult bees virus infection issues relating to transmission by varroa feeding on pupae and as Mr Tisch has also noted in discussion with me deformed wings and abdomens probably resulting from virus infestations. 
But my having looked at those sorts of aspects the reality is that pollination of many significant crop species in the horticulture arable and pastoral sectors is dependent on honey bees and a reduction in pollination of horticultural and arable crops could result in decreases overall in crop quality. So it is clearly appropriate as we look at that particular order that there be provisions of this type where funding can be extracted from relevant groupings to deal with what is clearly a threat to agribusiness in this country. 
Finally I commend this bill to the House and record on behalf of the Regulations Review Committee the work of its members in ensuring this bill come back to the House in such fine form. 
Bill read a third time.