Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:865] 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 General and technical provisions 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National will support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. It is the confirmation and validation of a number of pieces of legislation mainly of a technical nature. Part 1 which consists of general and technical provisions does not really inspire great debate and I will not be taking major calls on it. However I will have something specific to say when we get to Part 2 and that will relate to the biosecurity aspect which interestingly we have just been talking about in respect of the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill. It is interesting that this legislation follows that bill because I will be saying some specific things on that. I will also be looking at the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act which is an important piece of legislation that we will find in Part 2. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: As I said prior to the luncheon break one cannot get too enthusiastic about this bill. However it is important legislation in that it confirms and validates a number of pieces of legislation that would otherwise cause a lot of embarrassment and concern to people who might miss out especially in the area of superannuation. As I said earlier I will probably look at that issue in the debate on Part 2. 
I just draw the Committee’s attention to the report from the Regulations Review Committee that has been tabled. It is a very short report. Let us consider whom the committee consists of. It is chaired by Dr Richard Worth and if anybody has an understanding of legislation it must be Dr Worth. He has chaired that committee over the last 3 years and continues to chair it. His understanding and his ability to crystallise and articulate the arguments that are so important in the important legislation that we are discussing today is a credit to him. Also on the committee are Eric Roy and Kate Wilkinson. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That’s the A-team. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I say to the Minister that it is a good team of people who actually understand the technicalities and how this sort of legislation needs to be progressed. The Minister said it was the A-team—well Eric Roy was a member of the House some years ago and he has a deep understanding and can contribute to this process. Kate Wilkinson is a lawyer and her legal background is important and adds value to the process of this legislation. 
Part 1 looks at general and technical provisions and states that the bill’s purpose is to confirm and validate certain subordinate legislation in accordance with confirmation and validation provisions in the Acts under which it is made. Part 1 really sets the scene for what becomes important in Part 2 where there are specific issues that need attention drawn to. I will take a call on Part 2 mainly in relation to biosecurity. Of course just prior to the luncheon adjournment we passed all stages of the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill. That ties nicely into Part 2 in relation to the Biosecurity Act 1993. 
The other area that I think is significant relates to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Social Security Act 1964. We will be spending time on that. I do not wish to take further time on Part 1. As I said National will support this bill. Part 1 just relates to the general and technical provisions. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I am grateful for the comments made by the colleague who preceded me in connection with the Regulations Review Committee and its membership. He is right to say that the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill is not exactly bowel-gripping stuff. We are at the moment dealing with Part 1 “General and technical provisions”. Those provisions find their way before Parliament each year for each year involves the enactment of legislation of this type. 
There are a number of points of significance in connection with Part 1. The first relates to the purpose of the legislation. The bill is described as being “to confirm and validate certain subordinate legislation that in accordance with confirmation and validation provisions in the Acts under which it is made lapses at a stated time unless earlier confirmed or validated by Act of Parliament.” We are talking about subordinate legislation that in effect has a sunset clause. Unless this confirmation and validation process occurs the legislation is effectively spent. In looking at the actual orders that are confirmed because of their levy characteristics and the obligations for consultation it is clearly appropriate that there be the lapse of that subordinate legislation unless validated by Parliament. 
The bill is headed “Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill”. I will talk for a few moments about what is implicit in that word “subordinate”. We in this Chamber are used to passing bills that in due time become Acts or statutes. In the world of subordinate legislation we are not talking about Acts or statutes at all. We are talking about regulations rules and notices. The curious thing in the setting of the Regulations Review Committee is that not all subordinate legislation is within the purview of the committee. That is why in June 2004 the committee reported to Parliament on an inquiry into the principles determining whether delegated legislation is given the status of regulation. Some subordinate legislation is amenable to the jurisdiction of the committee and other legislation is not. That seems clearly anomalous—that was certainly the view of the committee. When the Government produced its response to the committee report that seemed similarly to be the response of the Government. 
I urge the Government in the context of the debate on Part 1 to take up a challenge that was issued by the Regulations Review Committee—to line up the definition of “regulations” in the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 and the Interpretation Act 1999 with the definition of “legislative instrument” as set out in Australia’s Legislative Instruments Act 2003. That was too much for the Government to digest at first opportunity. Instead it sought a lapse of time so that it could look more closely at how the Australian legislation was working. 
We are concerned here with subordinate legislation that is amenable to Regulations Review Committee oversight. But such is not always the case. In this particular instance the committee wrote to the seven Government departments responsible for administering this legislation to ask them to explain why confirmation or validation was warranted. Those particular Government entities were the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Ministry of Economic Development the Ministry of Transport the Ministry of Fisheries the Ministry of Social Development the New Zealand Customs Service and the New Zealand Defence Force. Those Government agencies were able to satisfy the committee that it was appropriate for this legislation to be passed so the committee recommended that course. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Confirmations and validations 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 This is a continuation of the Committee stage of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill which National supports. We see in Part 2 a listing of a number of statutes including the Animal Products Act and the Biosecurity Act and I understand that Mr Tisch will speak on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act. Under those Acts subordinate legislation is made that is required to be in some cases confirmed and in three cases validated and confirmed. Those three validation and confirmation orders relate to orders made under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the Social Security Act; the Tariff Act; and the War Pensions Act. 
 In what I hope will be the first of many calls on this important Part 2 I would just like to take as an example the Biosecurity Act 1993. It is an interesting illustration because Parliament is asked to confirm two orders. The first is the Biosecurity (Gypsy Moth Levy) Order and the second is the Biosecurity (Varroa (South Island) Beekeeper Levy) Order. I will deal first with the issue of the gypsy moth. 
Members who were on the select committee will know that that is one of the world’s most destructive forestry pests. So it was that Minister Sutton said that it took 2 years from the trapping of the final moth to declare a pest eradicated and the last and only Asian gypsy moth in the city of Hamilton was trapped on 26 March 2003. In looking at the issue of gypsy moth around the world it is quite clear it is a hugely destructive forest pest. Particularly in North America forests have been savaged by the emergence of the gypsy moth from the egg-larva cycle. 
I note that in April 2004 the then representative of the Green Party on issues of biosecurity noted that we needed on an ongoing basis to be extraordinarily vigilant in a setting where Asian gypsy moth egg masses were discovered on an imported vehicle. 
I have said that the legislation is made under the Biosecurity Act. I think what is interesting in connection with those two levies is that two quite separate sections of the Biosecurity Act are involved. The first is section 137 which relates to the gypsy moth provision and that particular statutory provision states that the Governor-General on the recommendation of the responsible Minister may by Order in Council impose a levy for the purposes of funding a service or function performed by the department for the purposes of the Act. 
If we look at the orders themselves we see they are cast in a very similar way but I note one striking difference between the two of them—that is in connection with the varroa mite conscientious objection provisions are built into the order itself. So under clause 18 headed “Conscientious objection” a beekeeper who objects on conscientious or religious grounds to paying the levy in the manner provided for by that order may pay the amount concerned to the Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 
We are privileged to have in the House the Minister of Finance who has special expertise concerning the varroa mite and I invite him to make some explanation as to why it was appropriate in that particular levy order to include that conscientious objection provision. Why is it appropriate to provide as a ground for objection to payment of the levy the provision that in fact exists in this legislation? So a number of orders are referred to in Part 2 and those are two of the more interesting. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Part 2 deals with confirmations and validations. I mentioned briefly in the debate on Part 1 that I wanted to look specifically at two areas one being the Biosecurity Act of 1993 and that I would mention in passing clause 13 “New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Social Security Act 1964”. 
I have a question for the Minister however which maybe should have come up in the debate on Part 1. He may be able to respond to my question: as we are dealing with clauses that expire as there needs to be consultation and as the levies go up each year—that is the process we are going through—is there a proposition that under the sunset clause provisions we are dealing with there will be a tidier way of going through that process without having to come back on an annual basis to go through it? I see he is shaking his head— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think it is important that Parliament validates and confirms. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Would the Minister be prepared to take a call shortly just to say why we go through the process? It is mainly for the sake of interest that I ask him to do so because I look at other jurisdictions and see sunset clauses—Australia has moved very much to sunset clauses in a lot of its legislation—and I would really like to know for my own interest if for no one else’s why we do this on an annual basis. If the Minister does take a call I would certainly appreciate it. 
I come back to clause 9 in Part 2 which concerns the whole area of biosecurity and in particular the gypsy moth levy and the varroa South Island bee-keeper levy. It was interesting that prior to the luncheon break we passed the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill which National supported because it is our view that nothing is more important than biosecurity. We must have defences and we must have in place the mechanisms to protect not only our exports but our culture and our heritage. Those things cannot be compromised. 
In relation to the Biosecurity Act of 1993 I want to spend time on the varroa mite which has caused so many problems. It was originally envisaged of course that the varroa bee mite would go only as far south as Taupo. Then over time it has actually now—oh yes; the Minister is shaking his head—extended its area throughout the whole of the North Island. My colleague Shane Ardern during his speech on the previous bill asked what would happen if the varroa bee mite actually ends up in the South Island. That would be a huge problem for bee-keepers in the South Island just as it is for those around the rest of New Zealand and that is why we must make sure that the requirements levies and protection for our biosecurity are paramount. 
It is our view that the Government has been lax in this area and that there were very clear indications that the varroa bee mite would become a problem. If it gets into the South Island then we are in real trouble. I actually mentioned that earlier on in the first reading debate before the bill went to the Regulations Review Committee. I do not know what discussion was held specifically on clause 9 which concerns the biosecurity area during the deliberations of the committee. Maybe my colleague Dr Worth can fill us in on that. 
I also want to draw the attention of the Committee to clause 12 which concerns the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and in particular the Customs Import Prohibition (Trout) Amendment Order. That is a very very important clause as it relates to the Waikato an area I represent and to trout fishing. The whole trout issue is a very important one for tourism. People travel the world to come and fish for trout so it is very important that we do not relax the requirements on importing trout because of its potential effect on tourism. What attracts a lot of overseas people to New Zealand are the trout throughout the Rotorua and Taupo region and further north into the Waikato. So I bring clause 12 and the prohibition order there to the attention of the Committee. It is very important and important for our region. I know that Stevie Chadwick is here in the Chamber and that she would also say that on behalf of Rotorua. She nods her head in agreement with me. She also did that during the first reading of the bill so I know I am actually on the right track. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 If I could try to respond briefly my understanding is that the conscientious objection clause and the levy issue there relates to similar provisions in the Commodity Levies Act and therefore has been carried over into that. In terms of the primary issue raised by Mr Tisch I think it is very important where the Government is imposing levies creating new levies or increasing levies and where it is increasing things like superannuation and benefits that have very significant fiscal costs that Parliament retains its ultimate right of control over those decisions made by the Government. The Government cannot keep coming back for primary legislation every time these kinds of things are required. However it is important that the Government is simply able to impose them without reference back. On occasions in the past separate legislation has been required for that confirmation. It is now the practice and has been for some years to have a single Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act. 
I am afraid I cannot advise the member about the possibility of the South Island being infested by the varroa mite. Clearly no level of regulation could prevent that from happening. Indeed there was hope that a line could be drawn somewhere around Taupo but the varroa bee mite was able to cross that line and so it spread. As always with those kinds of pests once they are here we can only manage them. They are not able to be eliminated because they quickly become widespread throughout the country. 
The member raised one other issue I think which has escaped my mind— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I mentioned trout. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The issue of trout—yes indeed. The view is commonly held that if trout were able to be farmed that would somehow reduce the value of freshwater angling for trout in the same way that if—in a strange and unreal world that one could not possibly imagine—one could buy tinned tuna that would clearly remove the ambitions of people who want to go deep-sea fishing for wild tuna. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There will be one debate for clauses 1 and 2. The vote will be separate. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 This is important legislation albeit as I have said it is not bowel-gripping. I have made a point that I would just like to underscore again in connection with the name of this legislation—the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. What is in a name some might ask. But often the importance of a title is understated. It seems to me that two clear principles should dominate the minds of those who name bills. The first is whether the name of the bill accurately reflects the content of the legislation. The second point is that for those who follow in our shoes as legislators or those who study legislation whether as students or as practitioners the legislation is logically named. 
If one were looking to find this legislation it might not be an easy exercise. How would one learn the status of the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order 2005 if one did not know that there was legislation of validation and confirmation? I would like to see and I know that National would like to see consideration given to a recommendation of the Regulations Review Committee that the phrase “regulation” is worthy of review. It is really against that background that the Regulations Review Committee recommended to the Government that an opportunity be taken to define what regulations are because the reality is that there are a number of pieces of subordinate legislation like these that are not titled regulations but which for practical purposes are regulations and are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Regulations Review Committee. 
So if one looks at the Road User Charges (Rates) Order 2005 which is referred to in clause 14 one might think that it is not a regulation. It is expressed on its face to be an order. But in the context of the jurisdiction of the Regulations Review Committee and the obligations for publication of orders it is in fact a regulation. That is why it seemed to me in a compelling way that it was appropriate to recommend to the Government that it amend the definition of regulations in the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 and in the Interpretation Act 1999 in line with the definition of legislative instrument as set out in the Australian Legislative Instruments Act 2003. 
There are a number of justifications for doing that. There is a jurisprudential justification but I would say there is also a case for aligning as much as we can our legislation with Australia. I express a caution in connection with that because we should not adopt Australian practices that lead to increased costs of compliance increased bureaucracy and the like but that need not be the case here. If we had a definition of and register of legislative instruments then much of the difficulty that I have adverted to in my previous comments would not arise. 
Of course we have a commencement date for this legislation in clause 2. The Act will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. That is why one assumes we are in urgency for the purposes of the consideration of this legislation: to avoid the possibility that a gap will occur and there will arise for a period an inability on the part of the Crown to collect what are in the nature in many cases in Part 2 of levies or taxes. 
I am not really persuaded by the view Dr Cullen has offered as to why there is a conscientious objection provision in one of these orders. That seems sadly misplaced and out of date in the context of this sort of legislation. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I will just finalise the debate for National on the title and commencement date of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. One of the important pieces of legislation that is provided for in this bill which I did briefly mention is the confirmation of the rates of New Zealand superannuation coming under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and Social Security Act 1964. I just make the comment that if the rates of superannuation are not changed then we are in a very dire strait. Many many New Zealanders would be disaffected by that and it would cause hardship. So the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order 2005 which was made on 7 March 2005 is validated and confirmed by this bill. When we come back to the title of the bill we find it actually ties in nicely with that regulation. 
That order increased most benefits and pensions in accord with the all groups consumer price index which increased by 2.7 percent. In particular the order increased the amounts of funeral grants and increased the widows benefit invalids benefit unemployment benefit sickness benefit domestic purposes benefit child disability benefit disability benefit independent youth-related emergency benefit and the hospital rate. We are confirming and validating a very important regulation today and that is why the title of this bill encompasses those provisions. The maximum amount of income that a blind beneficiary could earn while still receiving a subsidy was also increased as were certain asset and income limits. The order also increased the rates of New Zealand superannuation entitlements. 
In bringing the debate to a close for National I say we support this legislation. We supported it in the first reading in the select committee stage and through the Committee stage and we will also support it in the third reading. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the passage of the bill but I just want to stand and congratulate Mr Worth and Mr Tisch. Every morning when I wake up I thank God that there are such people as Mr Worth and Mr Tisch in this world and specifically in this Parliament. I could not bear to do the wonderful work that they do such as going through all of these bills word by word and clause by clause. I think they do a wonderful job. I think the rest of us in this Parliament who are more generalist in nature and dare I say it have a much more positive outlook on life than they do thank them sincerely for the work they do. I just could not let this time go by without putting that on the record. I thank those two gentlemen. I appreciate the fact that they are here. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time 
. During a reasonably lengthy Committee stage we were treated to the full array of legal talent on the National Party benches with Mr Richard Worth acting as senior counsel and Mr Lindsay Tisch acting as junior counsel. A number of searching and probing questions were asked such as why the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill was called the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. The answer to that question is that after considerable effort and despite calls in the past by the National Party for a royal commission on this matter to investigate the title we decided that as it confirms and validates subordinate legislation we might as well give in and call it the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill—prosaic I admit though that title is. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It was a great question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It was a great question. We then had a number of detailed questions. But what I want to dwell on for a few minutes as this is probably my last speech before Christmas or maybe the second last— 
Hon Members 
: Horray! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Members might not cheer so much when they hear the last one. 
 Mr Tisch quite rightly pointed out the importance of the fact that every year we have an increase in New Zealand superannuation which this bill validates. I must say I agree very firmly with that. Every year under this Government we have had an increase in the rate of New Zealand superannuation including in 2000 the first year. This increase was well above the rate of inflation. But I do have to remind Mr Tisch very gently—I realise he is a young junior member of this House—that three times under a 9-year National Government there was no annual increase in the rate of New Zealand superannuation. There was no validation of an increase in the rate of New Zealand superannuation because it was not increased. In 1991 1992 and 1999 the National Party did not increase the rate of New Zealand superannuation. It was frozen for 3 years out of the 9 years National was in office. 
So I welcome this conversion experience on the part of Mr Tisch to the virtues of the annual indexation of New Zealand superannuation. I trust he will stand tall within his caucus when his colleagues start arguing that in order to pay for tax cuts they have to freeze the rate of New Zealand superannuation because that is exactly what happened in 1999. National legislated for a tax cut and in the same year for a cut in the level of New Zealand superannuation. The two went together. 
But we will not revisit those arguments at this point. It is cruel and unkind to go through them yet again. We shall save them for 2008. The one thing about them is that they do not go stale in the cupboard. They are always fresh when they come out again during election years. So I thank Mr Tisch for reminding me of that fact. He gave me as the architect of the superannuation fund something to talk about that is close to my heart: the current wage banding for New Zealand superannuation and from 2007 onwards the KiwiSaver scheme. 
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.