Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19970] 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) 
First Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of the  
Acting  
Leader of the House: I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be referred to the Regulations Review Committee for consideration that the committee report finally to the House on or before 12 September 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
This bill is required each year because it contains various orders and regulations that must be validated or confirmed by the Parliament. If the House chooses not to validate or confirm any items of delegated legislation they will lapse. This is a small but important bill that traditionally receives the support of all members of the House on the basis that the orders and regulations tend to be routine and technical in character. This is certainly the case again this year. The bill validates or confirms orders and regulations under a range of legislation including the Commodity Levies Act 1990 the Customs and Excise Act 1996 the Land Transport Act 1998 the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Social Security Act 1964 the Tariff Act 1988 the War Pensions Act 1954 and the Wine Act 2003. The bill will go to the Regulations Review Committee and as it does each year the committee will I am sure give the bill a careful and thorough examination on behalf of the House. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 For people listening to the House on the radio watching on television watching on demand or sitting in the gallery the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) might seem to be a strange thing to appear on the Order Paper and it might be worth saying a few words about it. The Minister said in her first reading speech that these annual subordinate legislation (confirmation and validation) bills tend to deal with matters that are uncontroversial. The Opposition is consulted about the bill in advance of its introduction to ensure that there are no matters of controversy. As the Minister pointed out these bills exist because on occasion Parliament makes laws that allow delegated legislation that has a sunset clause to be made because the executive is conscious of the need to bring the subject matter of the order back to the House for consideration as to whether the powers taken under the principal legislation remain necessary for the administration of the particular regime that was set up by the relevant legislation. 
Although it is true that this is a non-controversial bill it is worth considering the sorts of matters that the legislation brings to the House. There is delegated legislation that prohibits trout from being imported into New Zealand. There is delegated legislation that prohibits the export of live cattle for slaughter. That is very topical particularly in Australia at the moment where there are huge concerns around the animal welfare issues that live exports to Indonesia for example are now causing. There is delegated legislation that allows for the automatic increase in tobacco excise; ditto alcohol excise. There are orders referred to in the bill that relate to the export of so-called dual use material which is scientific material that could be used in the manufacture of weapons such as nuclear weapons. 
Then of course there is a reference to the Tariff (New Zealand - Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Order. There is very similar legislation in Australia that is also very topical at the moment. That is the same kind of treaty under which a tobacco company seeks to sue the Australian Government in an international legal forum to prevent it from proceeding with its proposal to plain package tobacco products on the domestic market in Australia. There are very very similar provisions in the treaty between Australia and Hong Kong as there are between New Zealand and Hong Kong. It is worth not minimising the issues that Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) bills bring to the House. 
I think it is worth though raising a question about whether this is a good way to legislate. Is it a good use of the scarce time that the House has to allow for up to a 2-hour debate on a matter such as this every year when we all know that other urgent matters that could be dealt with are just languishing on the Order Paper? By my calculations we have 17 more sitting days until we run into the 16 valedictory speeches which have already been scheduled in this term of Parliament by the Business Committee. So I ask whether it a good idea from the point of view of parliamentary procedure to force on to the Order Paper every year this sort of bill for a debate of this nature. Could we do better? 
The Minister made a kind reference to the Regulations Review Committee which I have had the good fortune to chair in this term. She said she was sure that the committee would give the bill careful scrutiny and we will do our best but let me tell members a little bit about the scrutiny that we can in practice give this sort of measure—because we have done it twice already in this Parliament. We write to the relevant departments responsible for the administration of each measure in the validation legislation. We ask whether they still need these powers and invariably they write back and say: “Yes we do. We would like to keep them thank you.” We acknowledge that and then report the bill back to the House. We say that the departments responsible for the legislation would like to keep the powers they already have and that it appears to us that that seems unobjectionable and therefore we recommend to the House that the bill be passed. That is the level of scrutiny that we can effectively give to these sorts of measures because the committee has no other way of knowing whether there is any ongoing utility for the powers. 
We could I suppose in theory apply to the Clerk for an independent adviser to go through each aspect of the legislation and come to an independent view as to whether these powers are still required but we have never considered doing that. It seems to us that if we were to request that sort of resource we would be better advised to reserve it for some issue where there was actually some controversy. 
In reality there is no systematic method of review available to the House despite the form that these bills take for measures contained in them. That is why I raise the question of whether there is a better way to do this sort of thing. Under the current Standing Orders the only way that I can think of that there could be a systematic review of the ongoing need for delegated legislation independent of the empowering legislation requiring that there be a sunset clause or on the making of the order or regulation the imposition by the relevant Minister of a sunset clause is if the Regulations Review Committee were to undertake an inquiry as it did in the last Parliament on the effect of spent legislation. That is certainly a course that is open to the committee but it is not usually done. The question arises of whether there will be the time for that given that an ongoing scrutiny job is required in respect of all existing new delegated legislation. Then there is the complaints jurisdiction which the committee exercises under the Standing Orders when it receives a concern from a member of the public about the operation of an existing regulation. 
Maybe it is time to look at what I understand is the practice in the Commonwealth Parliament in Australia where all delegated legislation is now given a sunset date. My understanding is that the practice is that there should be regulations in force for 10 years and then it is a matter for the responsible Minister or the department to have to come back and make the case for the carrying on in force of the delegated legislation so that there is a justification advanced in every case for every regulation to continue in force. Maybe that is a good way to clean up the red books that sit outside in the lobbies because they do tend to fill up given our executive’s propensity whoever is in power to rely on the regulation-making power. 
I made some similar points when Mr Foss made his maiden speech as a Minister on the dog control legislation because that involved the invocation of what is known as the affirmative resolution procedure. That procedure is invoked not only with dog control legislation but with epidemic preparedness legislation. It was contemplated for the Canterbury earthquake orders but that notion was dropped in favour of the ordinary scrutiny that the Regulations Review Committee can provide. I said on that occasion that maybe the idea of having to come to the House to get specific pieces of delegated legislation confirmed under that procedure was not a great use of the House’s time either and that we had a perfectly good scrutiny committee that could perform this sort of scrutiny without using the time and resources of the House and report as required. I would have to say that similar logic applies to these annual Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) bills. They are not a good use of the House’s time and resource. We could be debating much more important substantive legislation but because this is an annual requirement we cannot do so. I do think that when we have legislation such as the Legislation Bill which would reform some of these procedures simply languishing on the Order Paper it is timely to think about how we could do a better job here. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It is fairly rare for members of this House to have an opportunity to consider in close detail work similar in nature to that undertaken each week by the Regulations Review Committee and I imagine that this debate may make our colleagues very glad of that fact. I doubt whether many New Zealanders will remain glued to their radios or TVs to hear the first reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) through to its conclusion. My long-suffering and incredibly loyal mother may prove to be one exception to that statement but even she I imagine will find herself switching channels back to Television One after the dinner adjournment as her devotion to  
Coronation Street 
 overcomes the questionable allure of this bill. But as the deputy chair of the Regulations Review Committee I am pleased to have this opportunity to reinforce the comments of the Minister the Hon Kate Wilkinson and the Regulations Review Committee chair Charles Chauvel who have preceded me and to say this is an important measure and the consequences of not giving it due consideration and seeing it enacted could be far-reaching and damaging for several affected industries. 
As the explanatory note states “This Bill’s purpose is to prevent the lapse”—either through expiry or deemed revocation—“of certain subordinate legislation that by virtue of the Acts under which it is made lapses at a stated time unless earlier confirmed or validated by Act of Parliament.” It is for that reason that Parliament is required to consider and pass this bill each year. Traditionally Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) bills receive the support of all members of this House as they are uncontroversial in nature. In fact that comment is equally true of the workings of the Regulations Review Committee as a whole. That is one reason by convention that the committee is chaired by a non-Government member of the House and I acknowledge the considered and constructive approach currently demonstrated in that position by Charles Chauvel. As a committee we work in a cooperative fashion and rarely divide along party lines reflecting the fact that our function is the scrutiny of parliamentary process rather than the consideration of policy matters. 
In this instance 13 orders and regulations listed in the bill need to be confirmed or confirmed and validated and they are made under seven different Acts. These provisions were outlined by the Hon Kate Wilkinson and Charles Chauvel so I will not repeat them. Although this is a routine and technical measure it is an important one to ensure that the subordinate orders and regulations do not lapse which will be their fate if these items are not confirmed or validated because each of the empowering Acts provides that the subordinate legislation will be deemed to be revoked on specified dates unless confirmed or validated by Act of Parliament before those specified dates—in other words the sunset clauses referred to a moment ago by Mr Chauvel. I can sense the excitement building right around this Chamber particularly from my colleague the member for Hamilton East and indeed right around the country and I therefore say “Let’s bring it on.” I have great pleasure in commending this measure to the House. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the first reading of this routine and annual bill. Although it is a routine and annual bill there are a couple of important issues in relation to the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) not only in its content but also in its process. As the purpose clause confirms subordinate legislation has to be confirmed to avoid the effect of provisions lapsing or deemed to be revoked after the elapse of a certain time unless confirmed or validated by Act of Parliament. 
In terms of process we are dealing with a sunset provision. Most laws do not have sunset provisions and therefore remain in force indefinitely. Some laws do and they provide that a law shall cease to have effect after a specific date unless further legislative action is taken to extend the law. A recent example in New Zealand is the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill which was passed in 1999 to discourage waka jumping in an MMP parliamentary system. That amendment expired as scheduled in 2005. 
We have been assured that this is a relatively administrative and procedural bill but it touches on many facets of our society. Matters to do with social security benefits New Zealanders’ superannuation war pensions or commodity levies are matters of importance and they are significant to the ongoing operation regulation and maintenance of those industries. 
Having said that I point out that one particular order that is validated and confirmed in this bill is worth mentioning. The War Pensions (Rates of Pensions Lump Sum Payments and Allowances) Order 2011 which came into force on 1 April 2011 amends the War Pensions Act 1954 to increase the maximum levels of pensions and allowances in accordance with the “all groups” Consumers Price Index and to implement the Government’s commitments—or so-called commitments should I say—in relation to the levels of veterans pensions. 
I reiterate what the Hon Rick Barker said in his press release in May: “the veteran community is still awaiting the Government’s long-overdue announcement on overhauling and updating the War Pensions Act 1954… [The] Law Commission reported to the government on 1 June 2010 making a number of recommendations to modernise the veterans support scheme legislation.” The commission outlined two principles but I want to bring the attention of the House to the second which is as stated by Rick Barker that “veterans who have suffered as a result of being put in harm’s way as part of their service deserve to be recompensed over and above the entitlements of ordinary citizens. No New Zealander would disagree with that. The commission also noted that some ACC entitlements were more generous than the War Pension entitlements meaning that some veterans were treated less generously than ordinary citizens”. Again I reiterate what Rick Barker said: “This is unacceptable unfair and needs to be fixed fast.” 
The contents of this bill deals with areas of lawmaking where Parliament has decided that it would not give the executive carte blanche in making regulations—for example levies imposed on primary producers under the Commodities Levies Act 1990 the Wine Act 2003 and so on and so forth. 
The bill also validates certain subordinate legislation. This is a chance for Parliament to examine the legislation for conflict with delegated legislation principles or any other defect in the regulations or in the making of them that could lead to the regulations being regarded as invalid or to cure any such potential defect by validating provisions. The regulations and provisions—for example the levies and so on—that are contained in this legislation need to be renewed and they need to be applied after consideration by this House. At each turn it means that these provisions will get renewed scrutiny. 
This is a strict contrast to another bill introduced to this House last week. Echoing the concerns expressed by my learned colleague Charles Chauvel a moment ago in this House but from a different angle I tell members that all the practices of the bill we are considering are better than those of the Regulatory Standards Bill sponsored by ACT’s Rodney Hide. Mr Hide’s bill introduces some new ideas that are relevant to some aspects of this bill. Mr Hide’s bill would be applied to new laws but after existing for 10 years the bill could apply to existing regulations as well. That could empower the courts to reinterpret provisions in other laws to make them consistent with the so-called principles prescribed in his bill thus changing the original intention of Parliament when the law was enacted. That is unconstitutional and would fail to meet the test of responsible regulatory management. 
To a large extent Mr Hide’s bill is redundant. Further by requiring certification by Ministers and chief executives Mr Hide’s bill would virtually change the role of Parliament and the courts and would put chief executives in a position to politicise themselves. I am trying to say that we have well-established practice and a good regulatory management system to make sure that laws are enacted appropriately and where necessary that subordinate legislation—namely regulations and orders—is confirmed and/or validated. This is what responsible regulatory management is all about. 
David McGee in his must-read book  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 describes the need for such bills as being purely and simply about confirming regulations that might otherwise lapse. These lapsed regulations are commonly brought together in a single piece of legislation and that touches on the very issue of the speed of lawmaking. David McGee has evidence of a dramatic reduction in the number of minutes allocated to passing each single page of legislation. He identified that a total of 12.3 minutes per page in the 2002-05 Parliament was the lowest amount of time recorded over the previous 50 years. This tells us about the quality of legislation business efficacy and what the legislators and Government can deliver. 
I conclude my contribution by mentioning another piece of subordinate legislation that is validated and confirmed in this bill. The Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order 2011 which came into force on 1 April 2011 amongst other things increased most benefits pensions and allowances. I particularly note that under this National-ACT Government there are more people on the benefit: 17521 more people were receiving a main benefit in June 2011 than in the same period last year which is an increase of 5.6 percent; 5409 more people were receiving an unemployment benefit in June 2011 than in June 2009 which is an increase of 10.6 percent; and unemployment benefit and student hardship numbers were up 234 percent in June 2011. 
This Thursday Labour will announce its economic package which will show that we have a vision we have a plan and we have very very good alternative policies. When National was voted in in November 2008 it had a huge mandate to do many things including bold ones which may not be popular at the moment but would have benefited New Zealand in the long run. It is a pity that opportunities have been wasted. Thank you. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Tena koutou katoa. I will make a very short call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) on behalf of my colleague Kennedy Graham and of course on behalf of the Green Party and its position on this legislation. The bill will provide legal force for subordinate legislation regulations and the like and in some cases will confirm orders that are already in effect but that will otherwise lapse unless this legislation is passed. The subordinate legislation that is covered by this bill includes levies imposed on primary producers under the Commodity Levies Act regulations made under the Customs and Excise Act and the Land Transport Act and rates of benefits pensions and allowances under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act the Social Security Act and the War Pensions Act. The Tariff Act and the Tariff (New Zealand - Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Act 2010 Commencement Order will be validated and confirmed by this legislation. 
Quite rightly these are mostly technical regulations which could easily be supported to go to the Regulations Review Committee. When specific groups are affected by these changes then no doubt they will submit or have the opportunity to submit on areas where they may have concern. The Green Party certainly supports raising benefit levels which is being done in part under this legislation I understand. Of course benefits are not being raised by enough and the poverty that beneficiaries still suffer from will continue under this legislation until there is a serious review of the poverty trap that the welfare system is at the moment. 
We do not have any particular concern at this time about the customs and export provisions but no doubt we will have a look at them when the bill is at the select committee. The land transport provisions deal with registration and the licensing of motor vehicles. Those provisions are quite complicated and technical provisions. It is difficult to tell at this early stage whether there are any specific issues with them. We assume that issues will be dealt with at the select committee if they do arise and again those affected will have an opportunity to submit. 
I say however on behalf of the Green Party that we do not support the Hong Kong free-trade agreement and we are opposed to the legislation in so far as it validates and confirms the amendment order for the New Zealand - Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement. On that basis because we are so opposed to it and have such strong views about the economic injury that these kinds of free-trade deals do to the New Zealand economy and therefore to families and New Zealand business the Green Party will not be supporting this bill at its first reading. We always consider that we have to weigh up very carefully whether we will support or oppose legislation like this where there is a range of different things some of which we may agree with or not have concerns about and other parts that we may disagree with. On balance the Green Party has decided that our opposition and concern for the New Zealand economy are reflected in our concern about the Hong Kong free-trade agreement. Therefore we will not be supporting this bill. Thank you. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 This is a wonderful opportunity to stand and talk to the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). It is not often that members of the Regulations Review Committee stand to speak so it is an honour and a privilege to have this opportunity. I will start by talking about one particular thing. This bill does a really important thing: it outlaws the export of military products and in particular components of nuclear or biological weapons or of chemical weapons. I think every New Zealander probably thought that was already outlawed. This bill does a number of things and brings in a number of regulations but it shocked me when I realised that those exports were not currently banned in New Zealand. 
I look forward to being a member of the select committee as it looks at many of these things. The Customs Export Prohibition Order 2011 has some very interesting things that I think the committee will look into in serious depth as it will look at the other issues in the bill around tobacco duties and the recent increase in those duties which I think is a very important step forward for the health of New Zealanders up and down the country. I look forward to the great deputy chairperson to my left Mr Tim Macindoe from Hamilton West admirably chairing the committee when and if required. Thank you. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Namaste. This debate on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) is the first time that I have participated in a debate of this nature. Of course when I was a highly sought-after speaker on this bill and had to go into a ballot to make sure that I was the third speaker I knew that this would be serious stuff whereupon I thought it was really important that I understood what subordinate legislation is all about and the process by which it comes into the House. Of course this completes my learning. I have also had the privilege of being a substitute member on the Regulations Review Committee. 
The Regulations Review Committee is one of those committees that if one is a substitute member on it for the first time one goes to assuming one will make a contribution but in the knowledge that there is absolutely no space at all to make any kind of contribution. There is an amount of paper that one has to read which I bet most members of the committee do not read about all the regulations before they are passed. But at least the members have the guarantee that there is legal counsel who has read everything and who comes to the committee to offer proper advice. Of course under the chairmanship of Mr Charles Chauvel and the deputy chairmanship of my good friend Tim Macindoe I am sure it all goes very well. I was very keen to try to understand the procedure by which those Acts that have time-limited provisions have to be brought back to the House for it to validate those provisions change them or confirm them. Of course now I know that this is the procedure whereby it happens. 
I was interested in the specific regulations that are being confirmed in the bill. It is a tremendous learning experience that there are these provisions. People who are watching the debate today on television will be very very interested to know about the specific provisions in the bill and that the bill will go to the Regulations Review Committee. I did not know that there is a levy on all chicken eggs produced in New Zealand for sale. Had I known that— 
Stuart Nash 
: Where have you been? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: That is a good question. I have been busy working out— 
Hon Member 
: Shock horror! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Absolutely; shock horror! But what is more interesting is to know where the levy goes. It is payable to the Egg Producers Federation of New Zealand Inc. The Commodity Levies (Eggs) Order which came into force on 20 December 2010 expires in 6 months. Obviously there was a very good reason why the order was limited to 6 months and now it is being confirmed. I hope the select committee has a good think about that. The committee members will want to know what has happened to the money where it has gone whether it has been put to the right use and whether it is time to confirm that order as an ongoing provision. The serious business of the House and the serious business of the select committee now make much more sense to me and now I understand why there was such scintillating discussion when I was a substitute member on that committee. 
Another one is the Commodity Levies (Tamarillos) Order 2010. There is also a levy on tamarillos grown for commercial purposes in New Zealand and of course people will want to know where that money goes. It goes to the New Zealand Tamarillo Growers Association. This is amazing; I did not know there was one. I love tamarillos. Of course the select committee will want to know where the money goes to and what it is used for and whether it is now time to confirm this particular regulation. 
Of course the regulation covering trout has already been spoken about. The Customs Import Prohibition (Trout) Order 2010 prohibits the importation of trout and trout products in quantities of 10 kilograms or more. A little bit is fine but if it is too much you need— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I am sorry; of course I know that Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson does not import trout products but New Zealand does as a country. Of course these products can be imported but the Minister of Conservation has to be involved if the quantity is more than 10 kilograms. Here is a regulation about trout and the select committee will ponder deep into the night wondering whether this is the appropriate one. 
But perhaps one of the most serious orders is the Customs Export Prohibition (Livestock for Slaughter) Order. I am not a meat eater so consequently my sympathy is with the animals. These poor animals—I do not know why we have to send our cattle deer goats and sheep for slaughter overseas. There is a little piece of me that knows that although it is prohibited it can be approved by the chief executive of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry under certain conditions. I urge the select committee to have a good look at this one. We want to make sure at least for a vegetarian like me that we do this under proper conditions and that if we do not have to do it we should not. That is a very important role that will be referred to the select committee in relation to this bill and I know that my friend Tim Macindoe will give this issue very very serious consideration. 
Then there is the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties (Tobacco Products Indexation and Separate 10% Increase) Amendment Order 2010. Can the committee look at shorter names for some of these orders? They are very long. This order is the one about the excise duty on tobacco. 
Another order is the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Alcoholic Beverages Indexation) Amendment Order. This has the rules by which there is an adjustment to excise and excise-equivalent duties on alcoholic beverages to reflect the movements in the CPI. Those rules play a very important role. 
But then comes the Customs Export Prohibition Order which is really about some of our treasures being exported. I hear that rules are coming up for confirmation around the export of pounamu green-lipped mussels and dual-use goods like the ones that the previous speaker spoke about that might be used in a nuclear production programme. So this bill brings very very serious regulations around really important matters to the House and will be referred to my esteemed colleagues in the committee. 
There is also the Customs Import Prohibition Order which I am sure the Minister of Police will be very interested in. This is about the prohibitions on the importation of offensive weapons—knuckledusters various knives and bayonets—and motor vehicles with inaccurate odometers. It is a very very specific and important regulation that is coming up for confirmation and our friends on the committee will ponder over many arguments from either side. They will look at this bill and bring it back to the House. I look forward to the Committee stage of the bill. We will ask hard questions of the Minister in the chair. 
There is another order under the Land Transport Act. It is about motor vehicle registration. There is a whole set of rules about registering motor vehicles and cancelling registration licensing motor vehicles and changing the use of motor vehicles. These are the other regulations to come in. 
Then there is an order under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. Of course this order is about increasing most benefits pensions and allowances. That is very important these days because a lot more people are accessing those benefits—not just people on the unemployment benefit etc. but also those on superannuation as well. So the interests of a large number of people are affected by that measure and the committee will want to validate and confirm those particular rules as well. 
Then there is the order about Hong Kong and preferential rates of duty under the Tariff Act. The Green Party does not support that provision. Now that we want to be unanimous I am sure there will be great debate on that issue in the House. 
As for the provisions on war pensions the committee may like to state in parenthesis on the side that it wonders when the overhaul and updating of the War Pensions Act will come into place. Perhaps the committee should look at the regulations around that; this might be a good time to do so. 
The most fascinating provision relates to the Wine Act 2003. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Wind him up. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: No this is quite interesting I say to Sandra Goudie. There is also a levy on those who grow grapes; however the levy is not imposed in relation to the sale of grape wine to another winery in New Zealand. We can sell that to other wineries and there will no levy on it but in some other places there are levies. So there we go; I have learnt more about a different part of one Act. 
This is a really important bill. We are happy to support its referral to the select committee and I look forward to the report back. Thank you. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to be able to take a call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). This is a bill that traditionally has the support of all members of the House. There is no need to expand on it at any great length. It will be going to the Regulations Review Committee for that additional oversight. I commend the bill to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to follow the interesting contribution made earlier by my colleague Dr Rajen Prasad on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). I also intend to look a bit more deeply into the bill than perhaps some of the other contributors have done so far. As has probably been mentioned the purpose of this bill is “to prevent the lapse (expiry or deemed revocation) of certain subordinate legislation that by virtue of the Acts under which it is made lapses at a stated time unless earlier confirmed or validated by Act of Parliament.” This is the first time I have been able to speak on a Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) bill although I understand that this is at least an annual process in Parliament and I thought I would find out a little bit more about the process. But first I say up front that Labour is supporting this bill to select committee the Regulations Review Committee which I am interested in finding out more about because I think that scrutiny of regulation and delegated subordinated legislation is really important. From the little I know—and I am trying to learn more—this is a very important feature of trying to ensure the integrity of this Parliament and the transparency of our legislation. 
Anyway I decided I would try to look a little bit more and I went to that source of a great deal of useful information  
McGee 
 to find out what it stated about this sort of thing because I thought I would like to know.  
McGee 
 states: “Each year legislation is introduced to confirm regulations that would otherwise lapse.” It further states: “regulations made under different Acts will be confirmed in a single piece of legislation often called”—as indeed this one is—“the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill”. Basically what  
McGee  
states is that “Confirmation is the House’s opportunity to consider the policy which lies behind the regulations to be confirmed. It is not an exercise confined to examining regulations for conflict with delegated legislation principles.” 
Interestingly enough  
McGee 
 states that there is “no presumption that a confirmation bill will be referred to the Regulations Review Committee” although certainly in this case we are referring it to the Regulations Review Committee. It continues: “A confirmation bill dealing with regulations solely relating to producer boards for example would be likely to be referred to the Primary Production Committee where the committee could hear evidence from growers opposed to the policy underlying the regulation—”. However it also states that a confirmation bill dealing with a miscellaneous range of regulations on a number of subjects is likely to go to the Regulations Review Committee and in fact that is happening here because in this bill a range of regulations are being looked at. 
The regulations are governed by a number of different Acts including the Commodity Levies Act 1990 the Customs and Excise Act 1996 the Land Transport Act 1998 the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 the Social Security Act 1964 the Tariff Act 1988 the War Pensions Act 1954 and the Wine Act 2003. I see the point that  
McGee 
 is making here: there is no commonality amongst all of those Acts. The regulations mentioned in this bill cover a wide range of issues from commodity levies through excise a range of things on motor vehicle registration social security rates and benefits the New Zealand - Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement and the (Wine (Grape Wine) Levy Order 2010. That is quite a range of things which would not go together in any of the subject select committees so off goes this bill to the Regulations Review Committee which I am sure will have a very interesting time looking at the various provisions in here. 
I shall follow on from Dr Prasad in looking at some of the different provisions. I too was interested in the Commodity Levies (Eggs) Order 2010 provisions. This is a levy payable as my colleague said to the Egg Producers Federation of New Zealand and it was expressed to expire 6 months after it came into force. This provision really is to see whether that will continue and likewise the Commodity Levies (Tamarillos) Order 2010. The levy in that case goes to the New Zealand Tamarillo Growers Association and— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How does the member know all this? 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I ate a tamarillo just the other day and it was delicious—really very nice. But the point is that that is not what this measure is about. There is also the Wine (Grape Wine) Levy Order 2010 and periodically I do drink a glass of wine but that is not really the point. The point is that these levies are an important part of industries and organisations that represent industries getting together and acting in the best interests of their industries in order to ensure that our food and beverage products—which we are renowned for as a country—have some industry-good work done. This is a way we can go about doing that through these levies which are set under the regulations and are now going to the Regulations Review Committee to see whether they need to be extended and confirmed. 
I support very strongly the idea that our industries cooperate in this sort of manner. There are things that are industry-good objectives which can be promoted to strengthen the ability of our exporters and producers to get products into overseas markets and earn us the very important export earnings we need as a country. From Labour’s point of view it is fair to say that we are deeply troubled by the lack of an economic plan from this Government in terms of supporting our exporters and providing the opportunity for us to earn the very income we need to provide the standard of living that this country desires for all of its people. This is just a small example but we would like to see a greater emphasis on an economic plan that supports our producers and exporters. So those are three regulation areas on tamarillos eggs and wine. 
Dr Prasad also talked about the Customs Export Prohibition (Livestock for Slaughter) Order 2010. This is an order that came into force on 21 December 2010 prohibiting the export of cattle deer goats and sheep for slaughter except with the consent of the chief executive of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and subject to any conditions not inconsistent with the prohibition that he or she specifies. That is quite important and I am not being flippant here. Obviously we are very concerned about exporting and the issue of livestock being exported is really important. Our colleagues and comrades across the Ditch the Australians have seen recently what can go horribly wrong in this area. Many many farmers in Australia have been concerned about issues they have had with the export of livestock—I think it was to Indonesia—and with that livestock then being treated inhumanely. 
This is a very important area of regulation. Increasingly global markets the sorts of countries that buy New Zealand food and beverage products want to know how we go about producing the items we are selling—the food they will eat. They want to know how that food has been grown and raised and how in the case of livestock livestock has been treated. Traceability is a really important issue. People all around the world are now demanding much more as consumers. They want to know that animals have been treated in a humane manner. They want to know what sorts of chemicals and other additives have been put into the food chain—all of these sorts of things. So this is an important regulation for us certainly from the point of view of ensuring that animals are not treated cruelly but also as part of the bigger picture of food production and the importance of the food industry for our country. 
Those are some of the areas covered in this Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). The issues I have chosen to talk about are the ones particularly relating to our food and beverage industries ensuring that they are strong and supported so we can get the best possible outcome in our overseas markets. 
Again I say Labour supports this bill. I am sure the select committee dealing with it will have a very interesting time dealing with all of these various regulations. I look forward to following its progress through the House. Thank you very much. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the  
Acting Leader 
 of the House: I move  
That the Regulations Review Committeeconsider the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 12 September 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.