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:866] 
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.