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:869] 
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.