Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of National to give a reasonably straightforward response by way of confirmation—well part of the confirmation thereof. I do also wear the hat that is the chair of the Regulations Review Committee so please allow me in that capacity to say that the committee has enjoyed its work in relation to this as well as the other considerable body of work that we've undertaken this year. It would be remiss not to put on record in case this is my last opportunity before the Christmas break that I've greatly enjoyed working with fellow committee members: deputy chair Rachel Brooking and her various colleagues of the Labour Party; also the ACT and Green members. Sadly we don't have a Te Paati Māori representative but I do want to note the collegial and constructive atmosphere of that committee in making such consideration as we have for this bill and particularly as well to acknowledge our wonderful clerk's team and also the advisers the legislative counsel who have supported us so well in this and our other work in 2021. The Leader of the House has given a good summary of the way that the House will treat this legislation and of course the overall philosophy behind it. Suffice to say that you know we regard it as an important principle that while there is some room to move for the executive to pass certain regulations notwithstanding that within a certain period of time a grace period if you like it's appropriate the House has a chance to fail to confirm those if it wishes. But on this occasion certainly so far as National is concerned we wouldn't see any need to pull that particular trigger even to the extent that we in minority would be able to do so. So just a brief comment on a couple of the issues just by way of flavour as much as anything. We've said that confirmation is warranted of orders made under the Biosecurity Act having communicated with the Ministry for Primary Industries. The beekeeping levy—we heard there that notwithstanding that there were some increases to levies there that the majority of those whom the ministry have reached out to and sought feedback from—I think I'm right in saying apiarists"—had expressed their support for that levy. I suppose there's an aspect of taxation versus representation—not strictly taxation. I'll be honest and say I haven't quite got my head around the difference between taxes and levies. We are still—probably fair to say—grappling with that as a committee. But nevertheless the general principle is that those who have been required to pay money should have at least some say in the way that those levies are set. Under the Commodity Levies Act—similarly milk solids and feijoas orders—we were interested there not only in the levies themselves but such aspects as how they should be paid how they should be spent collection of records and dispute resolution mechanisms as well. Again a little bit of democracy in action and we were advised that some 69 percent of those who had voted who'd been interested parties to participate in that consultation had agreed with that and they knew of no reason that they shouldn't be confirmed. So somewhat reminiscent of the good old-fashioned matrimonial procedure "If anyone knows any reason that these two should not be wed etc." and they didn't know of any reason and nor did we so we have no hesitation therefore in saying that we recommend that the House support that one—or confirm it rather.Under the Customs and Excise Act a couple of items there: tobacco products and alcoholic beverages—perhaps topical for some at this time of year. So we weren't looking at the policy intent behind the imposition of levies for example as we've been told to raise revenue but also discourage consumption. That's not within our remit but it was relevant to understand that because it was the view of Customs that that public policy aim was understood that policy intent wasn't referenced in the order. We thought that was a reasonable point along with the fact that there had been public consultation when the provision for annual indexation had been considered by Parliament in 2018.Under the Fisheries Act—an order there for quota management areas for pāua. Of course without quota management for pāua there would be absolute pāua and that would tend to corrupt stocks absolutely—Hon Member: Ha ha!CHRIS PENK: I'll move on. There were some other various orders and pieces of legislation on which those were to be made. Perhaps the only one I would just note the PACER-Plus agreement so-called—that's the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations so a bit of a foreign affairs - type element there and really just enabling that agreement that had been made to be reflected in New Zealand's regulations in that amendment order. So that's I think sufficient detail—perhaps more but it's too late if that's how you feel Mr Speaker or if anyone else does for that matter. So I'll conclude my remarks on the bill saying that of course we do recommend that the rest of the House also join us in confirming those. And again thanks to all those involved with the Regulations Review Committee consideration including of course those various Government agencies with whom we interacted to satisfy ourselves that the correct procedures had been followed.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time."