Worth Richard: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Worth Richard: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17793. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 For some the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) might not be a bowel-gripping topic but for others Dr Cullen included it provides I guess a heady topic of infinite fascination. I am certainly looking forward to taking multiple calls in the context of the Committee stage of the bill when there will be an opportunity to tease out some of the more challenging issues that arise in connection with this legislation. 
Of course it has been reported from the Regulations Review Committee that the structure of the legislation is simple—simple I would say in every respect. Apart from the title and commencement provisions there are only two parts: Part 1 dealing with general and technical provisions; and Part 2 in two subparts the first dealing with confirmation and validation and the second dealing with a more particular form of validation. 
So it is that we are looking at confirmation of instruments made in accordance with the Animal Products Act the Animal Welfare Act the Biosecurity Act the Commodity Levies Act the Customs and Excise Act the Gambling Act the New Zealand Superannuation Act the Social Security Act the Primary Products Marketing Act the War Pensions Act and the Alcohol Advisory Council Act—all of course heady provisions in daily use by significant members of the commercial community. 
An interesting question to ask would be why we have legislation of this particular quality. Would it not be better to have sunset provisions in legislation of this type rather than to have the process that the Regulations Review Committee determinedly embarks upon each year to make studied judgments on whether particular pieces of legislation should be confirmed and/or validated? In this particular case after an exhausting and harrowing process the Regulations Review Committee determined that it was appropriate for this bill to be passed albeit with a number of amendments. So it is that the purpose of this bill is to confirm and validate subordinate legislation made under various Acts. 
This is not one of those cases where whether what we are talking about are regulations in the strict sense of that term is a matter that arises for detailed consideration. Dr Cullen will be aware certainly from his reading that there are issues that are both intensely academic but also very practical as to how regulations within the purview of the Regulations Review Committee’s jurisdiction should be properly looked at. So we see here in effect not regulations—or not so limited certainly in that way—but a series of orders. I need refer only to the Biosecurity (American Foulbrood - Apiary and Beekeeper Levy Order) 2003—usefully reprinted in statutory regulation 2003/283—to make that point. 
We asked the Government departments responsible for administering the subordinate legislation their views on these particular pieces of delegated legislation. We asked the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Department of Internal Affairs the Ministry of Social Development the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and the New Zealand Customs Service and our final port of call was Veterans Affairs New Zealand whether as departments responsible for administering the legislation they considered that there should be the appropriate confirmation and validation orders. Surprise surprise they gave proper explanations and indicated their view that confirmation or validation was appropriate. 
Dr Cullen has referred to the fact that the bill includes—properly—a request from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in connection with amendments that would confirm the Deer Industry New Zealand Regulations. The reason for that request was simply that the regulations were not included in the bill as they were made only 2 days before the bill’s introduction. So there was an explanation from the ministry as to why that had occurred which the committee found acceptable. 
I shall not take up the time of the House at this stage to talk about issues that arose in the context of the submission made by the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand. But there are significant issues of substance there and it would be a good outcome if in the Committee stage the Minister indicated what his position was in respect of those questions of anomaly and I do not put it higher than that. 
Dr Cullen’s opening comments in this second reading referred to amendments to validate the Alcohol Advisory Council levies and so he should properly do so. There has been a history of error-ridden lawmaking relating to those notices. The story really starts with the notices issued in the years 1983 to 1987 and again of course in 1989 with the unauthorised setting of levies by litre of alcohol. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Power reminds me that he was still at school at that time and I certainly remember him as a very promising schoolboy in a high-profile school. He has gone on from there to prove himself in this Parliament as a person certainly worthy of recognition and advancement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member come back to the bill. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I would like to come back to the notices if I might because they were issued as I said in the years 1983 to 1987 then again in 1989. We are talking about the unauthorised setting of levies by litre of alcohol rather than by what is called in the trade proof litre which was the correct unit at that time. That was the first problem. The second was perhaps more serious and it related to the unauthorised setting of differential rates for spirits depending on their alcohol content with a further unauthorised rating on the basis of litre of beverage instead of litre of alcohol in the case of spirits with a lower alcoholic content. The third error related to notices issued in the years 1989 to 2004 where there was a questionable indication of goods and services tax payable on the levies. The final problem with the notices issued in 2003 and 2004 was a failure to follow the statutory formula for calculating the levies. 
Dr Cullen in his comments indicated that he thought the blame might reasonably be spread between the former National Government and the present Labour Government but I trust that that recitation is sufficient to show that the errors have been substantially of this Government’s making and of its advisers. Certainly that is what my catalogue of events indicates. 
So what has happened is that this bill has a new subpart 2 of Part 2. That includes clause 15 “Payments made in accordance with levy notices to be taken to comply with relevant enactments”. For those members of the House and I guess members of the public who have access to this material I tell them that listed in clause 17 are those levy notices lettered respectively from (a) to (u) that are the subject of remedial work in the bill.