which Mr Parker said that he didn't want to do. So, in saying that, I
commend this bill to
the House.
I call Dr Deborah Russell. I think the Opposition needs to learn the
difference between speed
and haste. We
difference between speed and haste. difference
difference between speed and haste. We want to do this. We want to get
it done quickly, but we
do not want to do it so hastily that
yet another mistake is made.
Let me just go back to what this bill
Let me just go back to what this
This bill is about fixing up a mistake.
We all concede that it was a mistake. We all concede that
something went wrong in this
then Government brought to the House to reform the RMA. We all know that
something went wrong and we all
want to fix it. So exactly what are we
The reason why we want to fix it is because money is at
stake.
Because it is actually costing us money. We do want to
get the job done, but we want to do
it properly. So, in order to
done, but we want to do it properly.
and I would like to just point out that this, in fact, is part of our
job. Our job as
Parliamentarians is to discuss the legislation, is
to debate in the House, is to take it
through a select committee
process. There is no need to
truncate processes just for the
sake of rushing stuff through the House.
This House's time is well spent
Refusing to speak on the bill, refusing to take the time
to deal with it in
refusing to take the time to deal
is a waste of the democratic Parliamentary process that we have
built up over generations. And
I urge the members of the
Opposition to take this process seriously.
It is our job to be here and to discuss this legislation, and I am
proud to be doing it's.
discuss this legislation, and I am
think about what is in the legislation. It does fix
a mistake. It fixes a mistake that means that
we cannot recover
the costs associated a board of inquiry into
section 20 permissions under the
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act. What is in
the section 20 that matters so
It is when people apply to conduct an
It is when people apply to conduct
specified in section 20 of the Act within our EEZ. Order!
specified in section 20 of the Act within our EEZ. Order! It
extended about 200 nautical miles
from our coast
about 200 nautical miles from our
opposition... . Let's look at what is in section 20 T sorts of
activities that we want to make sure
we inquiry into
properly, and inquiry into properly, to make
sure they are conducted well, using a
board
they are conducted well, using a we
they are conducted well, using a board of inquiry,
which incurs expenses, is things that are
listed in section 20 of
the original Act. That's the construction,
placement alteration, extension, removal or
demolition of a structure on
our under the seabed. We're talking
about stuff on the seabed. It's
the construction
construction placement, alteration, removal or demolition of a submarine
pipeline on or under the seabed.
It's the abandonment of a
submarine pipeline that is on or under the
seabed. The placement, alteration,
extension or removal of
a submarine capable from the sea bad. Removal of
disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in a manner that is likely to
have about adverse effect on the seabed
or subsoil. It a Tess it's
in deposit of any anything, in,
on or under the sesaid. It's
It's the destruction, damage or disturbance of the seabed or subsoil
in a manner that is likely
to have an adverse effect on marine species
or
an adverse effect on marine species
This is important. This actually matters. We actually care about what
happens on our seabed. We
actually care about what happens
in our EEZ. That's exactly why in order
to do this we have a board
of inquiry. They cost. And the way that the
previous Government left the
legislation, that cost was not going
to be sheeted home to the
user. And like us, they agreed that we need to
make sure that whoever is using
this, whoever is going to
benefit, actually needs to pay
for the cost. But the mistake that was left in the
legislation means that right now
it is not the user who is going to
wear those costs, it is the taxpayers of
this country. Now, they keep
on saying let's rush it through.
Let's get it done hastily. Let's make sure
we don't waste
anymore time and money. But already there are
applications in place which now
have to be funded by the taxpayer
because of this mistake. So, we
are moving speedily but without haste to
make sure we get this right.
And that is exactly why we wanted to go to
a select
select committee process. It is select
select committee process. It is exactly why we need to go
through a process. It will be a truncated
process, it will go quickly, but
we will at least try to make sure
we get the legislation
right.
just a little bit uptight about this is because it's actually an
object lesson in MMP Government. You see,
we know that the former
Government had a lot of trouble getting
their RMA reforms through. We know they
had to negotiate hard. We
know some of their support partners
rejected many aspects of their RMA bill. We
know that the particular reforms
that have come through, they are
reforms of the RMA, have been left
with perverse incentives
sitting in there. And that is because they
majority for it on this side of the House. On this side we have three
parties working together to make
sure we get it right.
Three parties holding the majority of
votes between them, working to make
sure that we will actually fix up this
mess that has been left to us
by the former Government. I want to
sort of address some of the issues
that the members of the former Government
raised, that members
did. In particular this one. It was a line
given to us the Hon Scott Simpson,
that slogans are harder than
Government. Well, I agree. Slogans
are harder than Government. We know
that that bill was complicated.
We know that it became harder than
that. And we know
that they tried really hard to get it right. But the
fact is they didn't. that's
why we have to fix it up now. And take
the process through the full stages
to make sure we get it right. They have
been telling us is a
minor matter. We already know that those boards of
inquiries cost somewhere between
400 and
inquiries cost somewhere between 400
of money to be worn by the taxpayer. Now, look, the annual
budget for this Government is usually in the
might think somewhere between 450,000 to
so much in that context. A million year, a million there, soon you are
talking about real money. We
do need to watch this and make sure
it gets sheeted home. We've been told
that, in fact, we're only
having this process
in fact, we're only having this
the house for a narrow political purpose. I suggest to
the members of the Opposition that
saving taxpayers' money is never a
narrow political purpose. It's actually
part of our job in this House.
And they have cried and cried and cried at
And they have cried and cried and
We must get this through properly. I tell
We must get this through properly. I
having to go back to fix mistakes. There is no efficiency in
having to bring this to the House again. But
we will not confuse efficiency
for effectiveness. We will get this bill
right. We will take it through
a proper select committee process, to
make sure that we really do
understand what is going on. We
really will give people who will
be affected by this
bill the opportunity to come and talk to us,
to explain their concerns,
to talk about
to explain their concerns, to talk
And
And we
And we will make sure that we save taxpayers' money. And not by
wasting our democracy, not by wasting
our
processes, not by wasting the skills and expertise that we have built
up through generations in how to
develop good legislation, but by
processing this speedily but
without haste. Madam Speaker,
I commend this bill to the House.
haste. Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. Thank
you, Madam Speaker. I would say to the member
that has just taken her seat, this
is a very small bill, the Exclusive
Economic Zone and Continental Shelf
(Environmental Effects)
(Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill, but she managed to give every
possible Government argument to
support this bill. And I
thought that was not a bad