of this Act, should it become law in its present form, a frequent occurrence.  Such measures cannot impose or increase taxation.  There are also restrictions on the creation of new offences, although new indictable offences with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years can be created by the new procedure.  There are also  restrictions  on  creating  new  rights  of  forcible  entry,  search  or  seizure.    A Minister must be satisfied that legislation is required to secure a policy objective.   The proposed order must be “proportionate” and strike a fair balance between the public  interest  and  the  interests  of  any  persons  adversely  affected.    It  does  not prevent  anyone  from  exercising  rights  and  freedoms  they  “might  reasonably expect to continue to exercise”. 68 There are three ways by which resolutions made under this proposed legislation can be approved by Parliament.  The first is a negative resolution, in which case a draft order is laid on the tables of both Houses of Parliament, and the order can be made, unless within a 40 day period either House of Parliament resolves that the order may not be made. 69 The  second  method  is  an  affirmative  resolution  procedure  which  requires  the approval of the House in order for the draft order to come into effect.  For some matters, there is also a super affirmative resolution procedure set out in clause 16 of    the    Bill.    Here,    the    Minister    has    to    have    regard    to    representation recommendations  of  a  Committee  of  either  House  of  Parliament.  The  Minister then  lays  before  Parliament  a  statement  giving  details  of  the  representations received.  This procedure goes on over a period of 60 days. 70 Each draft order must contain a recommendation by the Minister as to which of the above procedures should be followed in the particular instance.    71 The Bill itself may not be enacted in its present form, since it has been subjected to  criticism  in  the  United  Kingdom.    This  is  not  the  first  occasion  on  which legislation of this sort has been considered in the United Kingdom.  The impetus for  it  came  from  the  Regulatory  Reform  Act  2001.    A  review  of  that  Act’s operations concluded that there were too many hurdles for its use. 72 It would be deleterious to New Zealand’s existing constitutional arrangements to follow a procedure like that contained in the Bill in my view.  It should be noted 23