Worth Richard: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Worth Richard: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17801. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I hope that other members of the Committee like Mr Copeland and perhaps Dail Jones will feel constrained to make some comment on the very important Part 2. I will deal with one aspect which touches clause 9. That clause refers to the Commodity Levies Act in which curiously perhaps “commodity” is defined as meaning “any agricultural farmed forestry horticultural mineral or wild product:”. That legislation provides the basis for those levies to be imposed annually. 
Only four levies have been picked out here: the Commodity Levies (Tamarillos) Order the Commodity Levies (Meat) Order the Commodity Levies (Wool) Order and the Commodity Levies (Winegrapes) Order. All those orders except for the first are from 2004. Of course there are a host of commodity levies that go back to the period generally commencing from 2000. I ask the Minister in the chair Michael Cullen what has happened to the Commodity Levies (Arable Crops) Order the Commodity Levies (Asparagus) Order the Commodity Levies (Avocados) Order and the Commodity Levies (Bee Products) Order. Only three orders are directly picked up as I said. The Commodity Levies (Winegrapes) Order of 2004 does not appear in the predecessor orders except under a different name: the Commodity Levies (Winemaking Grapes) Order the statutory reference of which is 1998/349. 
What we see in the structure of the Commodity Levies Act as it is reflected in Part 2 of this bill and in the orders made in terms of clause 9 is the confirmation of orders following a statutory process. That statutory process is in many respects quite unusual. I just flag for example section 8 of that Act which deals with the issue of conscientious objection. It is very refreshing to see that there may be an ability to refuse to pay a levy for a reason relating to conscientious or religious grounds. That is what section 8 of that Act provides. It states: “Every levy order shall make special provision for the payment of amounts of levy by persons who object on conscientious or religious grounds to paying it in the manner otherwise provided for in the order.” We do not know yet whether challenges will be made to this legislation by people who for conscientious or religious grounds do not want to pay levies in respect of tamarillos meat wool or wine grapes. But that possibility cannot be ruled out. Certainly National is interested to know how the Government would approach a conscientious objector’s claim. Either the levy would be paid or it would not. How is it intended that there would be an adjustment that would reflect in a conscientious way the very purposive provisions of section 8 of the Act? 
Of course Subpart 1 of Part 2 of the bill is much wider than simply a reference to the Commodity Levies Act because it deals with legislation such as the Animal Products Act the Animal Welfare Act the Biosecurity Act the Customs and Excise Act the Gambling Act—which my friend Mr Tisch has spoken on—the New Zealand Superannuation Act the Primary Products Marketing Act and the War Pensions Act. 
It is also in Subpart 2 that the issue of “Validation of payments under levy notices under Alcohol Advisory Council Act” arises. I briefly referred to what seems to be an area that requires clear remedial legislative intervention. The Distilled Spirits Association made it very clear to us that it was not opposed to the supplementary audit of this bill that inserted Subpart 2.