Dalziel Lianne: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5074. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I too rise to support the referral of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill to the Regulations Review Committee. As a member of that committee I certainly look forward to the opportunity to address I think the concern that Charles Chauvel has raised. When I first looked at this particular bill and saw my name on the speaking list I thought I probably was not going to find a lot that I could say about it. But I am inspired by my colleague Charles Chauvel—as always—because I believe that what he has managed to do is to actually ask the House to confront a serious issue around a bill that might not look on the surface of it to raise such a matter. 
He talked about what was going to happen to this bill when it went to the select committee. It will go to the Regulations Review Committee and the committee will resolve to write to all of the Ministers and their departments in relation to each of these particular validation provisions. They relate to the Animal Products Act the Commodity Levies Act the Customs and Excise Act the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act the Road User Charges Act and the War Pensions Act. So there are Ministers in this House who will receive a letter I think from us asking for confirmation that in fact there is an ongoing need for the order or the levy so that we are able to report to the House that the criteria for confirmation and validation have been met. But I think Charles Chauvel raised a really good point: what is the point of that? We already do that when regulations are referred to the select committee. We do not actually need to have a confirmation and validation process in order for that to occur. So whenever regulations are passed they are referred to the select committee. If we have concerns about any particular elements of them we scrutinise them and we do write to the departments. 
Maybe the question that we want to consider at the select committee—as I say it never occurred to me that this would be an issue but having listened to the inspiring contribution of my colleague I am just wondering whether perhaps we should write to ask not just for confirmation that the confirmation and validation requirements are met but whether each one individually of itself should be in legislation that requires this process to occur. If in fact it does not require this form of debate and this form of scrutiny then perhaps something that we could add by way of value in our report back to the House is a proposal that we address this when we debate the primary legislation. 
If we look at the dates of the primary legislation of course they change in each of these validation bills. For example we have got the War Pensions Act which dates back to 1954 and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act is 2001 but the Social Security Act of course is 1964. Then we have got some in the 1990s but then we have the Road User Charges Act 2012. So there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason as to which regulation-making powers are subject to legislation that requires confirmation and validation in respect of the stated time of lapsing unless they are either confirmed or confirmed and validated by Act of Parliament. 
I actually honestly think that it is time for Parliament to have this debate as to whether this very process is one that is perhaps past its use-by date. As a result of this legislation we could ask ourselves whether we need a confirmation and validation process or whether it should be reserved for the very exceptional circumstances. These do not seem exceptional to me: commodity levies around navel oranges kiwifruit nashi pears arable crops cereal silage maize and asparagus. Apart from some of them describing my favourite fruit and vegetables which would be particularly asparagus and nashi pears— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Cereal silage! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Cereal silage is not something that really has found its way into my diet. It was really just those two asparagus and nashi pears. But the point that I am making is why them and why not other commodity levies that are applicable or are they all the levies that are applicable under the Commodity Levies Act 1990? 
The other thing that I find extraordinary about this legislation is the same with every other one of these bills that has preceded it. The first job after setting out the purpose of the Act which never changes is to have a clause headed “Validations to prevent expiry do not cure invalidity etc”. That is to ensure that if there is something else wrong with the regulation this bill is not a cure-all; it deals with just the question of expiry. Then there is the clause saying the Act binds the Crown. But then we have the repeal clause and this is the same in every single one of these particular bills. Clause 6 of every single one of them is the repeal clause: “The Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act 2011 (2011 No 96) is repealed.” But the 2011 legislation would have repealed the 2010 one and the 2010 one would have repealed the 2009 one and the 2009 one would have repealed the 2008 one. I think you get the drift. So although the technical niceties I guess of the legislative framework would appeal to somebody who does not want redundant legislation sitting on the book which is something that I have been a champion for for many many years. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I don’t like redundancy. I don’t like redundancy. This is supporting redundancy. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Regulatory redundancy Mr Mallard. Perhaps regulatory redundancy is the kind of phraseology for what I actually do appreciate as a champion for quality regulation and a very good legislative framework. So even though it might meet that test one does have to come back to the essential question which is whether we could cure the real problem which is to address it up front when the legislation is passed. I do not recall any of the debates that we have had on a Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill actually going into the detail of any of the particular orders that are being validated. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I can remember. I can remember. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well Trevor Mallard is obviously going to take a call on this and speak for some considerable time on his memory of other examples which of course will find their connection to this particular one through the repeal clause because the repeal clause will have had exactly the same effect as the repeal clause does in this particular one. 
I did suggest to the whips that it probably was going to be relatively challenging to spend the entire 10 minutes that one has to speak on a bill on an important debate on any matter in the House. I did not think that there was going to be an opportunity really for me to explore some of these issues but the fact is that I have managed to do so entirely within the Standing Orders. That is a result of the absolute inspiration that Charles Chauvel does represent in bringing these important matters to the House. I do not know that others can see why these things are so important but I do think that they are. We are often criticised as a Parliament for not taking the opportunity to address some of the—I do not know—historical ways that we have dealt with things and not having a modern way in order to address these issues. This process may have been designed to protect against orders being passed that have not been subject to a debate in Parliament. There may be rhyme or reason that applies to that historically. But I seriously do not think any of these particular provisions have been reviewed and I hope that our select committee the Regulations Review Committee can in fact raise that with the individual departments when we write to them. 
I do support this bill and look forward to it coming to the select committee.