Worth Richard: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
Worth Richard: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13219] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 It is right and proper that the House be detained for a period while it considers the significance of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). As the previous speaker has said National supports this legislation. 
Generally of course Parliament does not favour omnibus bills but some specific exceptions within the body of the Standing Orders contemplate that there will be some classes of cases where that indication will be departed from. Standing Order 263 deals with this issue and it provides that there may be omnibus bills in the nature of confirming or validating actions that are “otherwise illegal” or that “validate and confirm regulations:”. It is the case also that some statutes provide for the making of regulations that will cease to have effect after a fixed period of time unless they are validated or confirmed by an Act of Parliament passed within that time. If you like that is a form of statutory sunset clause whose effect can be avoided by Parliament confirming the regulations and giving them continuing force. 
There is a subtlety in all of this: there is a distinction to be drawn between validation and confirmation. Validating a regulation as opposed to merely confirming it potentially does more than to avoid the lapse of the regulation under a sunset clause. It can also cure a defect in the regulation or in the manner in which the regulation was made that would otherwise have led to the regulation being regarded as invalid. I have said there is a subtlety. It is a subtlety that parliamentary counsel pick up following accepted practice. If we look at Part 1 of this bill we see that clause 4 “Validations to prevent expiry do not cure invalidity etc” specifically states: “In the light of their purpose the validations effected by” these various provisions “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.” 
When we look at the particular confirmations and validations we see that some measures are to be confirmed and others are to be validated and confirmed. As an example of the first the regulations under the Animal Products Act 1999 are to be confirmed. Other members will speak about that. An example of a validation and confirmation would be the order under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. 
I will say something more about the legal position here. Each year legislation is introduced to confirm regulations that would otherwise lapse. Confirmation is not an opportunity to explore issues of validity; rather it is the House’s opportunity to consider the policy that lies behind the regulations to be confirmed. So it is not an exercise confined to examining regulations for conflict with delegated legislation principles. It might well be the case that specific orders are referred to subject select committees but here because of the significant number of provisions that are the subject of confirmation and/or validation they went to the Regulations Review Committee—which has as members know a general responsibility for delegated legislation—and were dealt with by that committee not by a subject select committee. 
Before I sit down I will give members just two examples of what happens here— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Please do—more than two. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: One of the younger Ministers on the other side of the House has asked for more than two illustrations. I am certainly happy to oblige him with multiple illustrations if that is truly required. But it is probably not and other speakers will pick up other illustrations founded on what I say. I will take just one which will be of particular interest to that young Minister: the Tariff (Concession) Amendment Order 2007. As members may be aware that order amended Part II of the Tariff of New Zealand which is the first schedule to the Tariff Act 1988 by altering the tariff concession reference number 80 which allows for duty-free alcohol imported by passengers arriving in New Zealand. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That’s something very close to the member’s heart. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: It is something close to the member’s heart. His predilection for alcohol is well known and is the subject of comment both in this House and outside it. But because that order was made under section 9 of the Tariff Act it was necessary in terms of section 11 of that Act for it to be validated and confirmed by an Act of Parliament if it was not to expire. “So what?” the Minister may ask. Well the “so what” answer is this: if the order is not confirmed it will lapse and the duty-free concession allowance of three 1125 millilitre bottles of spirit will revert to the previous concession allowance of one 1125 millilitre bottle of spirits. That was the position that existed prior to 1 September 2007. So the New Zealand Customs Service that hard-working group of civil servants would then be required to collect the duty payable on the additional two bottles that previously qualified for duty-free entry under the de minimis duty collection provision of the customs legislation. As we would all know and recognise that would create administrative difficulties and uncertainty for travellers duty-free retailers and customers. 
I will just take another example which relates to the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order of 2007. That order increased the payment rates of most social security benefits by the percentage increase in the consumer price index for the year ended December 2006. Section 61H(3) of the Social Security Act provides that an Order in Council made in terms of that legislation expires 12 months after it is laid before the House under the Regulations (Disallowance) Act unless it is validated and confirmed. So it is an example of validation and confirmation by an Act of Parliament passed before that date. In this case the order was laid before the House on 5 March 2007 and if the order is not validated and confirmed before 5 March 2008 it will expire will it not? So the payment rates of benefits and of New Zealand superannuation would revert on that date to the rates that applied on 31 March 2007. That would cause hardship and inconvenience to the people who are dependent on those benefits. It would cause administration difficulty for the ministry as it would need to notify beneficiaries and superannuitants and explain that the rates of their benefits would reduce and the ministry would have to field inquiries and complaints on that issue. 
The reason it is so important that the orders that are currently detaining the House be passed in this legislation is so that a regime will be in place that will not produce inequity and unfairness. But there is a wider issue but perhaps I will deal with that very particular issue in a later call.