There is objection.
I call the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. Madam Speaker, I rise to take a very
brief call on this particular
bill. But it is the case that the devil
is in the detail. The point was well made by
my colleague, Minister
Parker, where he said that there were a
number of fixes that needed to happen, but he
was going to tackle this one first,
because fundamentally he didn't
believe that costs should be
attributed to the taxpayer when
they should have rightly gone
to private interests, and in
this case, applicants. So, Madam Speaker, I
have heard the comments
raised by the speaker before me,
the issue about filling in time in the House,
and that the bill is a guise for
wider reform. Actually, the bill
is an opportunity to provide
a necessary response to a
fix that wasn't intended but never
got done, and that the Minister could have
done, but didn't, and
the select committee, in all its
consideration of all the submissions that went
before it, still didn't pick it
up. So, while the previous speaker has
said it was the intention,
the simple fact of the matter was that
it was never ever done. So, one
has to ask the question,
it was never ever done. So, one has
the intention to implement the fix that Minister Parker
is proceeding to undertake
that Minister Parker is proceeding
the intention of the sponsoring member of the Resource Legislation
Amendment Act to actually ensure
that costs didn't pass on
to
actually, when the Resource Legislation Amendment Act
bill was passed, and there was no change
of this nature, that
actually it was what we believe it to be. A
set of amendments that actually intended to
pass on costs to
the private taxpayer. So, I'm pleased
that Minister Parker has
addressed a small but important issue. I'm
pleased to see the advice
that has come forward in terms of the need to
ensure that a fix is
addressed, although we have received
advice that exact costs that will
be recovered aren't exactly known. It's
an important fix that has to take
place. I would invite the select
committee in their consideration
of this matter to investigate further
the range of costs recovery
that could be contemplated, or that
will apply. I'm sure that will
attract some attention, and
it certainly will attract attention from
those submitters who were
briefly contacted on this amendment. As
I say, Minister Parker recognises
that it's a simple but important fix to
address the issues around cost
It could be. But, actually, we want to ensure... The comment
was made that it could be done today. But by
sending it to the Civic Committee,
by ensuring that
this consultation on this necessary fix, where
impact on somebody, then through the submission
submission process those views can be heard. And we certainly
don't want to ignore the views of
people who will actually absorb the
costs and the impact of the amendment of
this particular bill. Madam Speaker,
again, I didn't intend to
take a huge call. It is a simple
but necessary fix to the bill. It's
important to ensure
that submissions are heard at the select
committee, that the select committee get the
opportunity to ask the questions on
exactly the range of costs that may
attribute to the applicant,
investigate the impact of that, and
perhaps what
perhaps what the perceived issues might be around that, to ensure that
we don't have to come back
to the issue again. In fact, what
we can be assured of
issue again. In fact, what we can be
a thorough consideration of all the issues will take place at
the Civic Committee
issues will take place at the Civic
I'm sure once it is heard in full and comes back to this House, we can
be assured that it will achieve what
it's intended to, that costs
don't pass on to taxpayers when they
don't need to, that those who
will be absorbing the costs
need to, that those who will be
the range of costs that will attribute to them, but also
the select committee would have had
the opportunity to investigate whether,
if, there are any unintended
consequences of attributing costs
users.
I call the Hon Nick Smith. Madam Speaker, I intend only to take
a brief call on this EEZ bill. And
the member opposite,
member opposite, Mr Shane Jones, questions why. And that is because
this corrects a minor drafting error
in a bill last year. It was actually
was passed in the course of the