this year. OK. The question is
that the motion be agreed to.
OK. The question is that the motion be agreed to. The Hon Scott
Simpson. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
be agreed to. The Hon Scott Simpson. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Methinks
the Minister who introduced this
bill doth protest too much. He was a
member of that select committee that
I chaired in the last
Parliament, and at the time he went on and on
and on about perceived inadequacies
of the bill. It was the
largest bill, the Resource Legislation
Amendment Bill, was the
largest bill considered by the then Local
Government
Government and Environment select committee in
committee in the last Parliament, and it was a very detailed bill. It
ran to some 700 clauses, ran to
over 250 pages, and, as the Minister
said, the departmental report ran
to about 450 pages. We
heard submissions from interested
parties from all around the country, much of
it was very detailed, much of
it very technical. And if the
Minister who was so critical in introducing
this bill was so clever
and so smart, as he likes to be,
usually the smartest man in the room is how
he likes to
define himself, why didn't he
he likes to define himself, why
Well, the simple answer is that it was a minor drafting error
in a large,
large, complicated and technical bill. And, really, when the
Minister introducing the bill criticises this
legislation and the need for
a slight amendment, really what he is
doing is he's criticising the very
hard and dedicated
professional work of Parliamentary
of Parliamentary Counsel Office, who did, on that bill, an extraordinary
job. An absolutely extraordinary
job. How those folk manage to do the
work that they do do on such
long and complicated
and complicated pieces of legislation always amazes me. But
they do a great job on behalf of
this Parliament and on behalf
of the people of New Zealand. And to
effectively criticise them
the way that the Minister has, I find
find reprehensible and appalling. This is a very
minor, technical piece of amendment legislation, and,
indeed, actually,
indeed, actually, it really doesn't need to be a bill in its own right.
This is something that
normally would be amended by way of a
statutes amendment bill, and there
is opportunity for
the new Government to do that. But to bereft
of their agenda and legislative
programme that they appear to
be using this very minor, technical,
administrative amendment to correct
drafting error, Madam Speaker, a simple drafting error in a large
bill
simple drafting error in a large
drafting error, simply because the Cabinet minute indicates that the
ministerial policy was set
correctly and right, and it followed the
principle that is
and right, and it followed the
in the Principle Act that the user pays. And so the Cabinet minute
and there were some 400 Cabinet minutes relating to this bill
clearly indicates, as it does in the impact summary that has been
provided by the Ministry for the
Environment, it clearly indicates that the error related
to cost recovery provisions for boards of
recovery provisions for boards of inquiry
inquiry appointed under the Exclusive Economic
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental
Effects) 2012, and this has resulted
in a misalignment between
what Cabinet intended when it
approved proposals to align it under the EEZ
with the RMA legislation. So, it's
a simple matter. And then that
asks and begs the question, Madam
Speaker, as to why the Government
is seeking to use the time, the
valuable time of Parliament, a
select committee process,
to make amendment of this sort through
a full legislative process. Really
all it can be is one of two options. The
first option is probably that they
want to flesh out and fill
out somehow an
somehow an incredibly thin legislative agenda, to keep
the House busy, in some way,
over the next few months while they
find a way to bring effect to their
grandiose promises and slogans
of their election campaigning
to policy fruition. And they're all finding
that an awful lot
more difficult than they first imagined. The
process of turning slogans into
policy action
policy action is incredibly difficult, as the new Government is
finding out. So, that's one option
that they have, in terms of
bringing this legislation to the House. The
second one is rather more cynical,
and I suspect may
have something to do with their real agenda, and
that is that they propose to use this
very simple technical
amendment legislation to act as some kind of
Trojan horse for the bringing to
the House some kind of SOP
that will fulfil a wider agenda than
we are being told about today. Now, I
would hope that that's not the case,
because this is a Government
that campaigned on openness and
transparency. They
transparency. They haven't delivered on that, of course, and only six
months into it, this has been one of
the most closeted and
deeply hidden Governments that we've had in the
history of our Parliament. And
so we know to be suspicious. We know to be
concerned and worried about what
they want to do. So, if we come back
to this bill, it's a
they want to do. So, if we come back
simple matter. There were five submissions made when MFE
went out for discussion. All five came back
and said that they supported it. And
so I do wonder what the motive
of the Government is in bringing
this to the House. We do
know that there does need to be a correction, and
we accept that on this side there was
a technical error and
that it does need to be corrected. We argue that
this is not the best way to
do it, that this is not the most efficient
or effective way to do it, but
we will support this bill.
And what's more, we will support the
Government's suspension to bring it
quickly to resolution, to bring it
quickly to resolution so
that the error can be corrected and so
that the taxpayer is not going to be put
at expense unnecessarily
due to a very minor drafting error.
at expense unnecessarily due to a very minor drafting error. And
it will be probably during the course
of this administration,
no matter how short it might be, that they
will probably bring legislation
to the House that
too does need amendment at some stage. And
so there will be a lot of
that yet to come in this
Government's short tenure, I'm sure. But to sum
up and really just
tenure, I'm sure. But to sum up and
because we don't want to extend it any longer than is necessary
because we don't want to extend it
is a minor, technical, administrative correction
administrative correction of a drafting error to an incredibly
drafting error to an incredibly long, detailed and
complicated principle Act that had many moving
parts. Sir, on this side of the
House, we commend the bill to
at the time House. Point of order. Madam
Speaker, I seek leave that at the
conclusion of first reading, the
bill proceed forthwith
through all remaining stages
remaining stages without debate and on one vote.
So, leave is sought for that. Is
there
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,