Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill 3

There are two remarkable points of relevance to this debate on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill which the Notice of Motion debate brought to our attention.



The first, of course, is to acknowledge the debt the House owes David McGee in his excellent service as the Clerk of House for some twenty two years.



As part of this service he has defined the value of Bills such as the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

In volume three of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, page 410, he 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 – a regular bakers dozen of bits and pieces.



True to form, in this one Bill and as has been said already, we have the vital order to ensure passengers can import duty free into New Zealand three 1125ml bottles of spirits instead of reverting back to one; alongside commodity levies orders for apples, pears, fish, southern scallops, vegetables, fruits, avocados, mussels, oysters and salmon.



Indeed, if you took all these requisite components apart we’re faced with a virtual hakari of regulation; a feast of provisions which we are encouraged to accord the greatest priority.



The second tasty morsel that arose during the notice of motion debate, was the vexed issue of the speed of law making.

David McGee has evidence of a dramatic reduction in minutes allocated towards passing each single page of legislation, identifying that the total of 12.3 minutes per page awarded in the 2002-2005 Parliament was the lowest amount of time recorded over the previous fifty years.

I am aware that the defence for this speed will be attributed to the quality work which occurs in the select committees. Having experienced partisan select committee behaviour, I have my doubts.

And so, as we come to debate this riveting piece of regulatory readjustment, I want to also raise the issue of the unseemly haste in the placing of items on the House Programme at this point in time.



It would not have gone unnoticed, that overnight, the order paper has been completely reshuffled. While yesterday’s top ten items, included just one new first reading Bill, the Protected Disclosures Bill, suddenly today’s top ten includes a whopping six first readings.



Where did they all come from – and why the sudden placement of priority on the order paper?



I wonder if the combination of Treaty settlement legislation and political numbers has anything to do with these sudden overnight changes.



Funnily enough, the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill – which yesterday was number 7 on the order paper, overnight dropped twelve places down to number 19.



For those Members who burn the midnight oil or set the alarm to watch the breaking news of prime time television on Te Karere, it would have also been noted that there is growing speculation that the Government lacks the numbers to pass controversial settlement legislation for either Te Roroa or the Te Arawa Affiliate groups.

The legislation is controversial because the settlements are wrong. The behaviour by the Government in respect of these two bills is about winning.

It is not about justice, it is not about fairness, it is not about doing what is right, it is about winning at all costs.



Madam Speaker, I raise these matters in the context of our deliberations on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill because I think it is critical that Members maintain a watchful eyes on the checks and balances against stacking the parliamentary agenda.



This is not to say that there are not crucial matters to be dealt to, in the context of this current Bill – but more to make the statement about how priorities are determined, agendas set.



One of the significant issues that concerns us in this Bill is that pertaining to the War Pensions (Rates of Pensions, Lump Sum Payments and Allowances) Order. The Bill validates and confirms the war pensions regulations set out in the 2007 order.



The House will of course recall one of the last acts of courage demonstrated by the late Archbishop Whakahuihui Vercoe who made a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal in support of Maori Vietnam veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange.



The claim was presented by the Vietnam Veterans Action Group, representing about 2000 Maori Vietnam veterans and their families. The claim estimates that 65% of those New Zealanders serving in Viet Nam were Maori.



Veterans have spoken, repeatedly, of their concern that the current system of compensation does not give justice to veterans. On 21st August, Viet Nam Veterans marched on Parliament in protest against what they described as “the Crown’s consistent and despicable rejection of Viet Nam veterans’ health and welfare concerns”.



We would hope that the honour of the late Archbishop and these Viet Nam veterans might be respected enough in subsequent stages of this Bill, to address the discriminatory impact of the differences in pension payment and compensation available for Vietnam veterans as opposed to other injured soldiers.



Another issue in which discrimination appears to be manifest is the Social Security (Rates of benefits and allowances Order). Whilst one of the intents of the Bill is to increase the rate of NZ super to 66% of the net average wage, we have to bring to the table, again, the question – what about the other benefits?



What about the 250,000 children who are discriminated against by virtue of the fact their parents are on income support – and are therefore restricted in the levels of support available from Working for Families?



What about the levels of deprivation that continue to be experienced for our most vulnerable, the poorer poor?



As we think of those who are currently facing the highest levels of deprivation, one cannot but think of the adverse impacts that gambling has on lower socio-economic communities.



The Gambling (Problem Gambling Levy) Regulations 2007 deal with the concept of building capacity to deliver the problem gambling strategy.



We in the Maori Party are completely in support of any initiatives which seek the elimination of gambling harm.



We know that the accessibility of machines in low income communities increases those living locally to have a higher risk of problem gambling. We are aware also, that for every dollar that a community group receives as a community grant through pokie machines, $3 has been taken.

Gambling creates an enormous drain on community resources – and so merely bumping up the levy to fund a problem gambling strategy must not be seen as the be all and end all.



As a starter, we are interested in proposals for legislative change to the Gambling Act 2003, which would give Maori a clear role in deciding the place of gambling in Aotearoa; and also empower communities to have the authority, if they wish, to remove gambling venues and pokie machines.



Another of the proposals lumped into this Sub-ordinate Legislation Bill is a set of schedule changes associated with freshwater eel stocks; Otago cockles; paua fishery; and other regulations included within the Quota Management System.



We simply make the statement – that with amendments to the Fisheries Act such as these, consultation and negotiation over the finer print must proceed with mana whenua, with the Maori fishing industry, as key players in the sector.



Madam Speaker, we do of course support the opportunity for the detail of legislation as is included in this Bill, to come before the scrutiny of Parliament.



We will support this Bill at its First Reading – but we will also continue to ask why it is that some Bills are slipping down, down down the Order Paper, with the risk that they may never see the light of day.