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
140 changes to both the Resource Management Act and to the Exclusive
This bill does two things. In the course of that legislation, new Part
3(a) was added to
the EEZ legislation. If you look at
the Cabinet minute, it was
clear that the intent of the Government was
that Part 3(a) would not be subject
to the powers that a Minister has to
direct the
direct the Environmental Protection Authority. That was not carried
through in the way in which the
legislation was finally drafted. It
certainly said a direction
could not be provided for Part 3, but did not
specifically refer to Part 3(a). The
second issue in the bill is in
respect of cost recovery
for marine permits. The larger bill, as a
consequence of improving the
economics within the Environmental
Protection Authority,
Protection Authority, aligned the board of inquiry process with the
legislation. It failed to provide for insurance that the EPA could
recover the costs in that change.
Again, if we look
recover the costs in that change.
there were 241 Cabinet minutes from that. If we refer back to the
Cabinet minutes, they make it
quite plain that the Government's
intent was for cost recovery. So,
what this bill does is correct those two
minor drafting errors. Now, I've listened
to the
to the Minister's introductory speech, and he has made criticisms
of the previous Government. I
would draw members opposite attention that
it was actually members on
this side of the House, National members,
who insisted that that bill be subject
to a full select committee process,
and it was actually members of
the Labour Party that opposed the
substantive SOP going through
a select committee, and, Madam
Speaker, I would suggest
any Minister that's brought a bill
over 500 pages long
through the process of the Parliament would not
be surprised that sometimes there's a
legislative error of this sort.
that have done nothing have never made
that have done nothing have never
Now, I would finally...
Matua Shane might, in some time, reflect on that. The Minister made a
big deal of the fact that for the
longer that this cost
recovery exist, there's a risk that someone
may lodge an application for
a marine permit with the
Environmental Protection
Protection Authority and not have the capacity for cost recovery.
Protection Authority and not have the capacity for cost recovery. My
colleague, Scott Simpson,
very wisely, who heard the submissions on
the original bill, who
said that this measure, this bill,
was totally consistent with the original intent,
sought the leave of the House to get
the bill passed through all stages
today and to correct that error. It
is somewhat unusual for
a Government member to block that occurring,
and that really does question, actually,
the Government seems more
interested in using this bill for a narrow
political purpose than actually
acting in the New Zealand's
interests of ensuring that
this minor error is immediately