Huo Raymond: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Huo Raymond: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19973] 
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.