Formal Opposition to
Legislation Amendment Bill

(Government Bill 152–1, Judith Collins)

From: Ukes Baha | 17 August 2025

Submitted in response to the call for public submissions on the Legislation Amendment Bill

---

Summary of Position

I oppose the Legislation Amendment Bill in its current form.

While framed as promoting accessibility and legislative quality, the bill functions as a centralisation of executive power. It grants sweeping authority to the Attorney-General, weakens parliamentary oversight, absolves the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) of accountability, embeds wide exemptions, and introduces fees and levies that risk barriers to access. It also shifts substantive law into secondary legislation, creating uncertainty and undermining transparency.

---

1. Centralised Executive Control

Reference: ss.83AB–83AC; amendments to s.83.

Problem:

• Expands Attorney-General’s power to direct agencies on drafting, publishing, and maintaining legislation.
• Allows certification and assurance requirements without robust parliamentary check.
• Concentrates legislative control in the executive, eroding Parliament’s independence.

---

2. Weakening of Parliamentary Oversight

Reference: Amendments to s.114; Schedule 3 exemptions.

Problem:

• Exempts some secondary legislation (House resolutions, Royal prerogative instruments) from being presented to Parliament.
• Schedule 3 creates sweeping exemptions from publication and disallowance across defence, aviation, biosecurity, telecommunications, and more.
• Allows significant law to take effect without parliamentary scrutiny, undermining democratic accountability.

---

3. Privatisation of Legislative Functions

Reference: ss.148–151.

Problem:

• Introduces fees, levies, and cost recovery for PCO functions beyond core drafting.
• PCO may refuse to act until payment is made, monetising access to law-making functions.
• Costs ultimately fall on the public, embedding hidden taxation into legislative processes.

---

4. Erosion of Accuracy and Responsibility

Reference: new s.146A.

Problem:

• PCO is absolved of liability for errors or inaccuracies in agency-provided material.
• Undermines the reliability of the legislation website as the authoritative source of law.
• Increases the risk of conflicting or unreliable texts, reducing certainty for citizens and courts.

---

5. Expansion of Secondary Legislation

Reference: s.96 revision powers; ss.77–77A.

Problem:

• Shifts substantive provisions from Acts into secondary legislation, bypassing parliamentary debate.
• Broadens revision powers to alter penalties, compliance, and operational rules by regulation.
• Normalises governance by secondary legislation rather than democratic scrutiny.

---

6. Excessive Use of Exemptions

Reference: Schedule 3.

Problem:

• Allows agencies to avoid publication on grounds of “commercial sensitivity” or “security.”
• Contradicts the bill’s stated goal of making legislation easy to “find, use, and understand.”
• Creates broad loopholes that weaken transparency.

---

7. Inequality of Access Through Digital Reliance

Reference: ss.72–75.

Problem:

• Electronic publication is assumed as the default, with print treated as an exception.
• Disadvantages communities without reliable digital access.
• Risks creating unequal access to the law, undermining universal applicability.

---

8. Uncertain Commencement and Revocation Rules

Reference: ss.77–77A; Schedule 1 cl.15.

Problem:

• Secondary legislation does not commence until published, but exemptions allow otherwise.
• Unpublished laws may be revoked automatically under transitional provisions.
• Creates uncertainty about when laws are valid, enforced, or revoked.

---

9. Delegation Without Accountability

Reference: s.133 amendment.

Problem:

• Extends PCO delegation powers to contractors and secondees.
• Risks outsourcing core drafting and publication functions without proper accountability.

---

10. Symbolic but Distracting Inclusions

Reference: s.16A (Sovereign’s birthday).

Problem:

• Minor symbolic changes are included within a major structural bill.
• Suggests political signalling rather than a genuine focus on accessibility and integrity.

---

Conclusion and Recommendations

The bill represents not legislative improvement but legislative erosion. It centralises control, weakens parliamentary oversight, reduces accountability for legislative accuracy, embeds financial barriers, and allows wide exemptions that hide laws from scrutiny.

I recommend the Committee:

1. Withdraw the bill in full.
2. Retain parliamentary oversight for all secondary legislation; remove publication and disallowance exemptions.
3. Remove provisions introducing cost-recovery, levies, or fees for PCO functions.
4. Maintain PCO responsibility for accuracy and authority of all legislation.
5. Restrict revision powers to technical corrections only, not substantive changes.
6. Guarantee both digital and printed free access to legislation for universal availability.
7. Limit delegation of PCO functions to accountable public servants only.

---

Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com