Bill, first reading. The question is that the Tariff (PACER Plus)
Amendment Bill be considered
by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and
Trade Committee. Those of that opinion
will say aye. The contrary
No. The Ayes have it. I call on
Government Order of the Day No. 3. The
Exclusive Economic Zone
and Order
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental
Effects) Amendment Bill, first reading. David Parker. I
move that the Exclusive Economic Zone and
Continental Shelf (Environmental
Effects) Amendment Bill be now read
a first time. I nominate
the Environment Committee to
consider Continental
Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate
time, I intend to move that the bill
will be reported to the House by 11 June
2018, and that committee
have authority to meet at any time
while the House is sitting, except
during Oral Questions, during
any evening Oral
Oral Questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been
a sitting of the House and on a
Friday in the week in which there has
been a sitting of the House, and outside
of the Wellington area, despite
Standing Orders 191,
of the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and
194 (1)(B),(C). This bill
is relatively short. It makes an amendment
to the Exclusive Economic Zone and
Continental Shelf
Continental Shelf Environments Affects Act, an Act that was
amended just last year. One might
ask oneself why this Act,
which regulates activities in New
Zealand's economic
regulates activities in New
Economic Zone and extended Continental Shelf,
Continental Shelf, which is necessary in order to promote
the sustainable management of
natural resources
sustainable management of natural economic
resources and protect the environment from pollution,
why it is that this Act
is necessary at all. The sad reality is that this
Act is
all. The sad reality is that this
we hope will be an Act in due course
many, many errors in the resource management law amendment act
that was passed by this house, but
a majority of one of two votes,
pushed through by the Maori Party with
the support of the National Party when
the ACT Party, United Future, the
Labour Party and New
Zealand First were all voting against
it because it was such an appalling
piece of legislation.
What
What that Act did, amongst many other mistakes, was took away
the right of the Crown to recover the
costs of applicants in respect of
resource use applications made
in the EEZ. The prior law had been
that the costs of the applicant, by
and large, can be recovered so that they
don't fall on taxpayers. The effect
of the bill that the National Party
promoted was to
accidentally remove that power. Sir, the effect of this
is if this amendment legislation is
not passed by this House,
and until it is, the taxpayer foots the
bill for the incompetence of the National
Party. The consequences of that, the
average cost recovery in respect
of some of these very significant
applications for mining in the EEZ,
for example, the
costs of those often run over a million dollars.
So, the effect of this, if
it's not passed, is hard to quantify in terms
of that we do not
know how many applications are going to be made
in the EEZ in the future,
but we do know that in the past they have
been, and when they are made,
the cost of dealing with
the application is significant, and at the moment
that cost now falls on taxpayers,
hardworking taxpayers, who should
not foot the bill of costs. And
as a consequence of the mistake of
the last Government, they had that
effect.
effect. Sir, the process costs, and
the costs in respect of this
intervening period, will still be significant.
This legislation
This legislation is not retrospective. There is
a current application before a board
of inquiry that will incur
costs on behalf of the Crown that cannot
be recovered from
recovered from the applicant, because of the
incompetence of the last Government. This
because of the incompetence of the
run to many hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is a bill that
will be borne by taxpayers. In addition
to
be borne by taxpayers. In addition
to taxpayers, there is the cost of this process. The cost of
legislative
legislative processes is not cheap. All of us here are paid. Our
officials are paid. The
Clerk of the House are paid. We have
occupancy expenses. The cost of any
piece of legislation
expenses. The cost of any piece of
necessary as part of a democracy, but you ought not to waste
that on legislation that is unnecessary but
for the incompetence to pick up this
error in the
earlier legislation. Now, it wasn't for haste in respect
of the Resource Management law...
Uh, the Resource
Legislation Amendment Bill, which became an
Act, because as
Amendment Bill, which became an Act,
committee report notes... Well, actually, the select committee
report on that, uh, um, piece of
legislation records
legislation records the appalling process that was run in respect
of that application. The
bill was referred to select committee
on 3 December 2015.
referred to select committee on 3 December 2015. Submissions were
heard throughout the country by the
then select committee,
about 130 submissions. I was lucky
enough to be involved in that prolonged
process, and we heard submissions in
Wellington, Auckland and
Christchurch. Many were complex, but
those submissions were heard by
2 June 2016.
those submissions were heard by 2 June 2016. Madam Speaker, by
the time this work had been finished by
the select committee, there
had been numerous provisional
numerous provisional time periods that had passed. Everyone was put
to enormous effort. By the time they
Maori Party, they had another
another six months, and their departmental report
departmental report ran to 400 pages. I was part of that
select committee. And by the time it came
to be considered, virtually every
hardworking member of that select
committee had actually forgotten a
lot of the submissions and detail
that we had been given.
And that...
Well, only the Labour Party, says Scott Simpson. The Hon Scott
Simpson... Well, actually, I think
at the time he was chairing this
committee, and he failed to pick up
this error as well. Not only did
his colleagues do it, but so did that
member. Well, actually, we
criticised this legislation. We
criticised the process. We actually
warned the House that this
legislation was so flawed that it
ought not to proceed. We... We
lamented the poor process. We
actually said that that poor process
hadn't been the fault of
the committee, and somewhat
generously to the Chairperson,
we also said it wasn't his fault. It was
actually his master's fault.
But the process for considering that bill, as was
recorded in that
select committee, says,
recorded in that select committee,
Speaker, there are many aspects of that bill that were detailed in the
select committee as being poor. But
we warned of this very outcome, that
rather than making
the resource management processes...
management processes...
RMA and in the EEZ better, they were making them more complex. They were
making them worse, and they
were gonna add to costs. This is just but
one example of where the shambolic
legislation added to costs. Those
costs are falling on taxpayers. They
are falling on taxpayers both
by having to pick up these
costs that the last Government managed to
remove the cost recovery
provisions in respect of, and through the
cost of this process. Now, I am hopeful
that we will hear from the National
Party that they agree they shouldn't
be wasting more time on this
process, and not arguing for hours
and hours the referral motion, which
says it slightly shortens
the
committee. Because it is a very narrow bill. We don't, in this bill,
try and fix all of the other
numerous errors in the underlying
piece of legislation, 'cause that
requires a bit more time and thought
and hearing from submitters. But
this particular amendment
should fly through, I think, because the
National Party should be
craven in their apologies to New Zealand.
Craven in their apologies to us.
Craven in their failure
to respond to the select
committee report that warned that these sorts
of errors were going to happen
in this legislation, and admit that the
Opposition had it right, that the
Labour Party had it right, that the
Green Party had it right, that the
New Zealand First Party
had it right, that the ACT Party, on that
occasion, had it right, and
that this legislation was always
deeply flawed, as is proven once again
by the need for this amendment
legislation. With that,
I support the first reading of this bill.
Point of
the first reading of this bill.
Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an
answer given
answer given in question time today. Is
answer given in question time today.
Madam Speaker, today in question time in response to a supplementary
question following Question 7, I
said that
question following Question 7, I
relating to the Dunedin Hospital rebuild
rebuild would be presented to Cabinet in the middle