Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The bill corrects an error in legislation that governs the management of activities in our offshore environment and ensures that a cost recovery regime that charges the applicant can fairly operate. A new board of inquiry process for dealing with some marine consent applications was added to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, which I will shorten to the EEZ Act in future. This was added in 2007 through the Resource Legislation Amendment Act, and an additional provision is needed to allow recovery from an applicant of the board of inquiry costs that are applied under that Act.

Now, members who were in the House during the last term will remember that there was quite a controversy around that piece of legislation. It had a shambolic passage through the House. It lay around at select committee for about a year because the Government couldn’t put together the numbers for the bill. The chair of the committee was Scott Simpson, and he was having to turn up time and again—it wasn’t his fault; it actually wasn’t his fault, but he had to turn up time and again because his Minister didn’t have the numbers for the bill, because it was opposed not just by the Labour Party but also by New Zealand First, by the Green Party, and by two of their then coalition partners, United Future and the ACT Party. They couldn’t even get support from the Māori Party for it until they did a trade on some other legislation.

Now, throughout this, the bill was lampooned as being overly complex and ill-considered, and this is one of many examples of where it was flawed. So the effect of it was that taxpayers were left footing the bill in respect of applications for consents within the EEZ area that went to a board of inquiry, and this bill fixes that, relieves the long-suffering taxpayer of having to do that in the future.

The select committee’s now heard this, and can I thank the Environment Committee for doing that and for the scrutiny that they gave it, at the end of which the committee has unanimously recommended that the bill should be passed, with one minor amendment which corrects a cross-reference. Can I also acknowledge the New Zealand Law Society, who wrote to the Environment Committee and to me about another area that they’ve suggested clarification for. They’ve suggested that it would be easier to follow the legislation if there was another provision put into the Act by this amendment bill to make it clear that existing cost recovery provisions in the EEZ Act will continue to apply, and we’re intending to do that at the committee of the whole House stage.

There are other issues that are more substantial, for me, in respect of the EEZ legislation that are not in this legislation. I find it hard to understand why we have a different legal test and a different set of rules applying to sea areas out to the edge of the territorial sea compared with the rules that apply within the EEZ. It’s unnecessarily complex to have two different sets of legal principles and two different processes that apply inside and outside that boundary of the territorial sea. It makes no sense, and, indeed, that’s been made clear in some applications that have had to make applications at the same time for consideration under the Resource Management Act out to the territorial sea boundary and a separate application for the same activity in respect of the portion of the sea outside the territorial sea to the EEZ. We can’t fix that in this bill, but it does point to more work needed on this in the future.

The bill also sets out criteria: the Minister must have regard to, when recovering costs from an applicant—those who have sat on the Regulations Review Committee in recent years will have seen complaints from applicants where some of the board of inquiry costs have run to millions of dollars and they haven’t felt like the board of inquiry has had appropriate controls on the way in which they incur costs which are eventually recovered from the applicant.

I don’t think any more needs to be said, other than that. After this amendment bill passes through subsequent stages, applicants will be subject to the cost recovery provisions they ought to have been subject to. I make the point that we’re not applying this retrospectively, and anyone who’s filed an application before this law comes into effect, effectively, does so at the cost of the taxpayer. That’s appropriate, given that we ought not to be imposing these things retrospectively. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I just want to acknowledge the—I thought—very thoughtful contribution of the Minister for the Environment, in whose name this bill appears before the House. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a brief call in the second reading of this Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill, which the Minister abbreviates just to the EEZ bill, and I think that’s probably a right thing to do.

This is a technical tidy-up. The original piece of legislation, as the Minister said in his comments, related to work that was done in the previous Parliament around the Resource Legislation Amendment Act. That was a very significant piece of legislation. It ran to over 700 separate clauses and some 250 pages in the statute book. So it was a pretty grunty piece of legislation by any measure, and it had a vast array of moving parts in it. There were lots of pieces of the Resource Management Act (RMA) that were amended and changed and modified, and it also made amendments to the Conservation Act, the Reserves Act, and the Public Works Act. So there were many moving parts to this legislation.

I don’t blame at all the hard-working and diligent professionals at the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) who actually have to draft all this stuff, get it finely tuned, interpret and understand the directions that come from both the Minister driving the legislation—and that comes through a process of Cabinet approval and Cabinet minutes and Cabinet notes—but then, also, the directions and interventions that are made at select committee, and the various submissions that are made. It’s a very big job.

I think the other thing to remember is that when the good folk at the Parliamentary Counsel Office are drafting legislation of this sort, it’s usually not just one piece of legislation that they have on the go at one time. Most of the time they’ve got multiple pieces of legislation, and I think it takes a very special kind of educated brain to actually do that work and do it as thoroughly as they do. Now, notwithstanding that praise for the good work that the PCO officials do, in this instance a mistake was made and, through a human drafting error, a direction that was made by Cabinet, approved by Cabinet, and that had the intent that is being achieved by this amendment bill today was simply omitted. Now, that’s a kind of human mistake that can be made from time to time, and I don’t want to apportion any blame for it, but a mistake, none the less, was made, and so Parliament needs to just address that issue, and that’s what we’re doing.

I think a very good question that arose during a truncated select committee process was why we needed to have a special piece of amending legislation to achieve this outcome. Parliament will very shortly consider what’s known as an annual Statutes Amendment Bill, and that’s usually the place where errors of this sort, that occur from time to time, are fixed and are resolved. A special piece of legislation is usually not required, in its own right, to be made to take up the time of the Parliament in sitting time, or indeed the time of a select committee. But, in this case, the Government decided to do that.

So at first reading the Opposition acknowledged that it was an honest mistake, an error in drafting, and we were prepared to simply move the changes through all stages at first reading. That invitation was declined by the Government, and we then moved to a select committee process. That process was truncated, shortened, and, at select committee, there was agreement amongst select committee members—it was a unanimous decision—that we wouldn’t take submissions, but that we would, actually, invite the New Zealand Law Society to give us the benefit of their views and opinions on the changes that were proposed.

Then, before we had had an opportunity to receive that advice and submission from the Law Society, the Environment Committee, in its collective wisdom, decided to report back to the House, and the committee did that in terms of where we thought it was. We had received advice from PCO draftspeople that told us that what we sought to achieve was being done by the amendments that they had proposed. Then, subsequent to the report coming back to the House, the select committee received from the Law Society a very useful and helpful submission that actually went beyond what we had expected, I think, from them in the first place. Then, as a result of that, having reported back to the House, we found ourselves as a select committee having to say, “Well, actually, the Law Society makes some pretty jolly good points. Maybe we should reconsider a couple of those things.”

So we find ourselves now with an amended amendment, slightly—and, again, not the fault of anyone in particular. I think the intention and good will of the select committee was well-made. I don’t think there was any malicious intent at all; I think this is just one of those things where it’s been a bit of a comedy of one thing on top of another.

So the Law Society made a submission to us, and they suggested three things: firstly, that the proposed new board of inquiry cost recovery provision actually differed from what was in the RMA, and that was, of course, what we had designed this amendment to do. We wanted it, actually, to essentially be a cut and paste and to apply a board of inquiry cost recovery model that was replicated in other statutes and other parts of the legislation. We found that that actually hadn’t occurred, and it was the Law Society that drew that to our attention. The Law Society considered that there was a need for a greater alignment, and that that would be appropriate in terms of fulfilling requirements of the legislation. So that was one area that they brought to our attention.

The two other areas that they brought to our attention—the first related to cost recovery criteria. Although this piece of legislation is designed to ensure that people who are making applications for marine consents in the EEZ, essentially for a private gain, should pay. The logic of that, I think, is fair and reasonable, but the Law Society pointed out that that might not always be 100 percent the case—that there may be a public good from a resource consent, a marine consent, in the EEZ, and that the bill should actually accommodate that in some meaningful way. They used an example of, perhaps, a private enterprise that was seeking to lay submarine pipelines, for instance. Now, that’s essentially a commercial enterprise, but the net result of it provides a degree of public good in terms of public service and betterment of public usage from the installation of such a pipeline. Now, what the Law Society suggested was that that should be somehow recognised in the bill. The Minister’s indicated that he wants to address that at the committee of the whole House stage, and I think that’s a sensible thing.

The third point that the Law Society made was in relation to an objection process. They said that at present, and unlike the RMA, there’s no formal objection process enabled in the provisions of this bill, and the Law Society, I think, made a good argument on the basis of reasonableness that an objection process should be included. It’s my hope that the Minister will consider including that suggestion from the Law Society also, by way of Supplementary Order Paper, at the committee of the whole House stage.

So, on this side of the House, we support this bill. It’s a minor technical tidy-up, but it’s been a little bit of an adventure and a bit of a learning curve for us all, I suspect. I commend it to the House.

Thank you so much, Madam Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. This bill is, essentially, about supporting good governance of our marine environment; however, it is also about fairness—especially, fairness to our taxpayers in carrying that task out.

Our marine environment has significant value to Aotearoa New Zealand. It encompasses social, spiritual, and cultural dimensions. Last year, we went through this particular process of passing this legislation and, as you heard the Minister for Environment, the Hon David Parker, address this House just earlier on, this was a process that was not only long but it was a process that all of us on this side of the House this year were actually against. One of the reasons why our side of the House was against this particular bill at the time was the fact that we wanted the bill to be fairer on our taxpayers.

As you would have heard described—especially from the other side of the House as well—the principal Act, which the bill actually amended last year, unfortunately did not take into account the fact that there was an oversight in cost recovery, which the member opposite, Scott Simpson, has just spoken about. The Resource Management Act actually allows for cost recovery to happen; however, a mistake was made last year. That was not included. That is one of the reasons why we are passing this legislation, under urgency, as fast as we can. When you look at some of the examples from the select committee, one of the examples that was given was the fact that, in terms of the boards of inquiry, when they’re dealing with applications for the marine environment—one of the examples that was given to the select committee was that it cost over $1 million for a board of inquiry. Now, when the benefit that is actually proposed is a private benefit, when that benefit is not met by the private applicants but instead, as it is right now, is actually met by the public purse or by taxpayers overall, that is not fair, and that is one of the reasons why we are discussing this particular legislation now—fixing it.

However, can I just make a point as well that fixing legislation like this when mistakes have been done in the past is time-consuming and it does take all of us in the House to ensure that the mistakes are fixed. My hope is, as we move forward, that this particular bill that we’re passing today actually fixes a lot of the mistakes that were made in the past. I strongly commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to rise in support of the second reading of this Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. Firstly, I want to take the time to congratulate my colleague the Hon Scott Simpson on his précis of the process and how this bill came into being: the fact that, in the last Parliament, we had the resource management reform. It was a complex set of reforms. As you heard from Mr Simpson, there were over 700 clauses amended, over 250 pages of material, of various moving parts, and it was very complex.

One thing that I think was unfairly lobbed towards this side by the Hon David Parker was that this was our error. As anyone can see, when you have a complex reform bill, it’s only natural—we hope it doesn’t happen, but it can happen—that certain things get overlooked when time pressures are on the table. I support the Parliamentary Counsel Office, but it was a drafting error and it has resulted in this very minor and technical bill by way of a tidy-up. I’ll certainly say to the Government at the moment that that criticism is certainly unfounded and unfair, and I would simply draw their attention to their 100-day plan, where they extended paid parental leave, which, certainly, I was supportive of, but when they did so, and that was a relatively minor bill, they overlooked extending the keeping-in-touch hours at the same time, which resulted in me putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper and the Government adopting it. So that is simply a highlight of the fact that, when we are drafting legislation—when we are doing it and it is complex or when we are doing it in a hurry—even the best of us can overlook some minor elements, and we need to go back and tidy up.

So here we are. We are here with a bill that is tidying up a technicality, and it is minor. There is no substantive change here; it is a policy decision that was signed off by the previous Cabinet, and we are making good on that promise in that it is only fair that when a private individual is looking to seek a private benefit in the marine space, that when they apply for that consent and through a board of inquiry process, they pay for the cost incurred of that assessment. This is what that bill does. It also enables the applicant to ask the Minister, through the Environmental Protection Authority, for an estimate of those costs. Again, a fair mechanism to have and certainly not a policy change. And it also allows the Minister, in considering that assessment and the consent—any offerings from the applicant that would reduce the costs as part of that application process. So the Minister can assess that and bring that into the mix when they are providing the estimate and their assessment of the reasonable costs for that application process.

So, as you’ll see, it’s a very minor and technical bill, which has resulted in this truncated process that was before this House and then before the Environment Committee. I am a little bit amused that this process wasn’t truncated further. We had debate in this House at the first reading that the first, second, and third readings should be taken as one because it was so minor and technical. Regardless, it was referred to the Environment Committee, where it was again unanimously decided that no submissions would be taken. And, as the Hon Scott Simpson pointed out, we did seek further consideration from the Law Society, which resulted in a very good submission to us that detailed three points. Two of those points we did decide were verging outside of the scope of the bill and verging into a new policy arena, but certainly the first, with respect to drafting and making the bill clearer with regard to cost recovery, was taken on board.

So, anyway, we are here now. We have our bill in front of us and it is supported by this side of the House. I’m certainly not going to take any more time in discussing this bill, given that my colleague gave such an excellent précis of where we are to date, and we support this bill in its second reading.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand and speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. I too will take a relatively short call on this as we progress this bill through the House.

I’d first like to make note of Minister David Parker and thank the Minister for bringing this bill to the House; noting that he mentioned that the original Act—this is why this amendment needs to happen—had a bit of a shambolic passage through the House. But he also noted, to his credit, that the former chair of the select committee—actually, it was not his fault; so it was good to hear that as well. It was an overly complex Act—the original one—and more work definitely needs to be done on that, and we will be seeing that work come through the House at some later stage.

I’d also like to acknowledge my fellow colleague from the Environment Committee, the Hon Scott Simpson, for his contribution on this bill today. As a new member to the House who was not here in the previous Parliament, I appreciate your contribution, as you saw the original bill coming through the House; so thank you for that. In fact, it really is a pleasure to work in the Environment Committee on pieces of legislation like this where we can work together effectively and collaboratively. That’s something that I’m really enjoying—being a part of that team.

Just noting that this bill, as has been mentioned already by all the previous speakers, is a sensible, housekeeping piece of legislation. It has a very narrow scope and it corrects an error. So there is no point delaying its passage through the House. It will amend the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012, and the Minister for the Environment will be able to recover the costs of a board of inquiry when an applicant applies for a notifiable marine consent. Now, those costs of the board of inquiry are substantial. They can go into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that’s why it is important that we tidy up this piece of legislation so that the taxpayer, the Crown, doesn’t have to foot the board of inquiry costs.

So as we looked through this piece of legislation when it came into the select committee, we noted that we did not seek to have submissions on it, but we did hear from the New Zealand Law Society. Their contribution to this piece of legislation, although it was asked to be a shortened, truncated process, actually ended up being quite important, and I note that they pointed out one amendment to this amendment, and that will correct a cross-referencing error. It is a very tiny, very minor cross-referencing error, but wouldn’t it be a tragedy to have an amendment and then have to find another amendment if we didn’t get this piece of legislation through the House with this correction? So the cross-referencing error comes through in clause 4: “In section 14, [replacing] ‘Parts 3 and 4’ ”, and then we delete Part 3, so it will just read “with … 3A and 4’.” So it’s a very tiny amendment there that the Law Society pointed out; so it was a very fortunate thing that we did have that period of time where they could make a submission.

This amendment bill will enable the Minister for the Environment to recover the costs of the board of inquiry, but it will also enable the Minister to delegate power to the Environmental Protection Authority to recover the real and actual costs on his behalf, and that’s a very important part of the process.

I won’t delay any further my contribution to the House, other than to note that the Government will be introducing a range of other short-term changes to the Resource Management Act over the next period of the year, and a more comprehensive, longer-term view of the resource management system will be considered next year. In fact, there has been one submission which will have a board of inquiry. The first application, in fact, to the exclusive economic zone board of inquiry process has recently been lodged; so that is already under way, but there will be no further once this piece of legislation passes through the House.

So we cannot penalise people who, in fact, have played by these rules, but this is a cost which will go into hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it’s really great that we’ll be able to get this through the House over the course of the next few days so that there will be no further cost burden to the taxpayer. The environment Minister, as I’ve mentioned, will be introducing more of these amendments as the Government proceeds, logically, to tidy up other pieces of legislation that need some technical fix-ups.

In conclusion, New Zealand First supports the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill as being a very sensible piece of housekeeping legislation. It’s the first step in correcting a series of legislative mishaps and pointing towards more important work on the Resource Management Act, and so I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill at the second reading. I really am not going to take much time on this speech; a lot of what has needed to have been said has been already said by my learned colleagues, especially Mr Scott Simpson and Sarah Dowie.

In the end, this is a very minor technical amendment to fix up what is a drafting error in the original legislation. The intent of this bill is to give effect to existing policy settings and decisions, and it was always intended that this bill provide for cost recovery of boards of inquiry in a manner consistent with boards of inquiry under the Resource Management Act. As sometimes happens in large complex bills such as this one, errors can be made, and, indeed, it was made in this bill. The upshot is that at present the costs of a board of inquiry fall on the Crown, even when the applicant is applying for a marine consent for private benefit. Of course the intent was that in this instance the costs of a board of inquiry be carried by the applicant. So this amendment bill is to amend the drafting error; it correctly puts the costs back on the applicant.

As expected, there weren’t any public submissions on this bill, as it really is just a straightforward fix-up bill. The select committee process was very short in that case, and it was led by our fine chair, Deborah Russell, in her usual extremely capable manner. The only thing that was really worth noting was the advice by the New Zealand Law Society, who made a number of recommendations. It was an interesting process to be part of as a new MP, because I would’ve expected that we had this advice in before we reported. Unfortunately, we didn’t. The Law Society did make a number of really interesting and quite important recommendations, one of which I know is going to be taken up as a Supplementary Order Paper by the Government but I would encourage them to look at some of the other recommendations made by the Law Society. They were good recommendations that I think we need to look at quite seriously, perhaps in the committee of the whole House stage.

So that’s really all that needs to be said about what is very much a small technical amendment to fix up what is a mistake that can often be made in such large bills. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker; I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you. Similarly, I will not be taking very much time to speak on this bill, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. It’s a very slender bill: three pages with an explanatory note.

It’s all very well to say that it was always intended that this happen, but the former Opposition opposed the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill quite strongly for being quite shambolic in the way it went through select committee and in the House under the former environment Minister, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because of the scale of the changes and the fact that they weren’t integrated. So this is yet another example of the Government having to fix up some problems created by the former administration.

So of course it makes sense that the cost of applications for marine consents, which are publicly notified under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act (EEZ), should be borne by the applicant, because unless this bill goes through, those costs are borne by the Crown. When applicants are seeking a private benefit—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: A very sanctimonious hill the Minister’s climbing.

—for the use of public space, it’s appropriate that they pay for those costs. Now, Mr Simpson’s saying it’s a sanctimonious bill—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: No, it’s a sanctimonious hill that the Minister’s climbing.

The issue is that we get this fix to the legislation. Mr Simpson obviously isn’t interested in listening at all with the number of his injections.

So this is moving to ensuring that under the EEZ Act, we have the same regime as under the Resource Management Act: that the costs of the boards of inquiry are recovered from the applicant. So it is a very short and simple bill. The sooner it goes through the better, because already there is one application which is before the Environmental Protection Authority, and the Crown will have to bear some of the costs of that. So it’s a good fix and it should proceed.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me to take a short call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill—one which I didn’t sit on the select committee for, but it does affect an area that I have a specific interest in.

I suppose I’m quite relieved, really, that I spend my life looking forward not backwards. I don’t think there’s much point in looking back, but I did want to briefly outline a couple of issues that have been raised in the course of the speeches, and one of them was by the Hon David Parker when he talked about the challenges that he has with the rules being slightly different whether we’re inside or outside the New Zealand exclusive economic zone, or in New Zealand territorial waters. I thought that made a bit of sense, because, if you think about the area of interest that I’ve got, particularly around aquaculture and the things that happen with the fishing industry, there’s a high likelihood that you could, in due course, have consents being applied for or use applications being made for factors that are certainly affected by both of those areas of interest. I think there’s a lot of sense in what the Hon David Parker said about trying to rationalise that challenge that we have with our current legislation.

The other thing, of course, that this particular clause does, and the bill does, is have a significant impact on the way we consent aquaculture particularly, and how we then recover those costs. I think the encouraging thing for me in this bill was the fact that the authorities or the Government have to give an accurate—or the consenting authority, I guess—view of what those costs might be. Of course, that’s quite challenging, as some of these applications are very expensive. But it will be very reassuring for those applicants to know that they have the opportunity to at least get some sort of an estimate of the costs and, I guess, hold that consenting authority to account later on if those costs are not necessarily adhered to.

The other thing I think that’s interesting in the course of this bill, and it doesn’t apply to this part of the bill, is that if you look back at history, it shows how important it is to put complicated pieces of legislation—and even simpler pieces of legislation—through the select committee process, because it’s so easy for mistakes to be made, and we’ve seen a number of times in my time in this place where we’ve had to bring legislation back to the House. Only the other day we were talking about local government legislation where we have challenges with legislation for setting rates and things like that where they’re not set properly and have to come through the House to be reviewed. So I think that this will probably just epitomise the importance of putting all legislation through the select committee process. I don’t think there’s an excuse for not doing that, and even when we do put it through the select committee process, it’s still possible—and no matter how diligent and how long it’s there for—for mistakes to be made in the course of implementing that legislation.

I won’t waste the time of the House any further. I think it’s important that we do have these sorts of pieces of legislation and we have them in the order they should be—that they are correct. I also think that it’s important that we look to the future around this type of legislation and think as to how we might review it in the future, because there’s no question it will need reviewing in the future. I don’t know that we have our environmental legislation in the right space at all in New Zealand, and it will be interesting to see where future Governments get to with that. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

This is a split call. Five minutes—Dr Deborah Russell.

Mr Assistant Speaker, we’re talking about the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill, but, to be honest, I think we should really call it the “Well, We Could Have Done That Better Bill”, because, actually, it’s kind of characterised it all along. To be honest, it did start from a drafting mistake in the big set of legislation that went through the Resource Management Act in the previous Parliament, and drafting errors do occur in complex legislation—there’s no doubt about it—but, well, we could have done that better.

Then it came back into the House so that we could fix it, and as part of that process we had a very truncated select committee process. Now, in part that was driven by the report-back dates, in part by Parliament’s sitting schedule, and because of that very truncated process as a committee, led by me, we elected not to hear submissions on the bill. Frankly, looking back, I’m going, “Urgh! Well, we could have done that better.” We asked for some advice from the Law Society, but we had to report back to the House before it came in and, again, if perhaps if we’d waited—well, we could have done that better.

I think the fact is that there are a lot of lessons to be learnt in this. It is only a minor matter but we could have done it better. And although I’m saying “we”, at some stage of this I’m going to say, “I could have done this better in terms of the leadership of the select committee.” A week or two ago, we heard Speaker Trevor Mallard in this House talking about how when he got advice from officials it was advice, but if he signed his name on it, then it was his decision. I signed my name to that in the select committee so, actually, I could have done that better.

But so be it. We’ve got it in front of the House now, back in the House. We think we’re going to get it right this time. We’re certainly working on it hard—all of us together—to get it right. And here I’d like to especially acknowledge the words that the Hon Scott Simpson spoke earlier this evening about, really, the hard way we worked together to try to get it right even though we could have got it better. I think it augurs well for the process that we’ll be going through talking about climate change legislation later this year. As a committee we do work well together, we try to get it right, and we’re hoping that we won’t be coming back on that one saying we could have got it better. I’d also like to acknowledge the deputy chair, Mr Todd Muller, who is great in terms of advice and actually helping that committee to work effectively.

So we could have got that better; could have done it better. What we’re trying to do now is get it right. We’re doing our best on that and we want to get it right because it is about our environment, which is critical to us. We’re doing the best we can.

A five-minute call—I call Maureen Pugh.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand to speak also to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill in its second reading, today. And this really is an odd bill to be debating in the House here today, and I consider it a waste of the House’s time, to be perfectly frank. It was a waste of time of the select committee, it was a waste of time of the advisers, of the parliamentary counsel, and of the committee’s secretariat that supported the select committee, to be making such a non-controversial amendment. All parties here agreed to the change. However, that side of the House insisted that it be put through this process, consuming valuable staff and committee time and also this House’s time.

It’s such a minor amendment to be making and it could have been easily dealt with as part of a statutes amendment bill. And as was suggested by my very astute colleague here beside me—the Hon Scott Simpson, in his first reading speech even sought leave of the House that this bill proceed forthwith through all remaining stages without debate and on one vote. But that side of the House wouldn’t go there, and we may wonder why. It certainly wasn’t in the interests of expediency or efficiency and it certainly wasn’t in the interests of openness and transparency that we hear so much about but we are yet to witness in practice. And it wasn’t in the interests of any potential submitters, because the process was so truncated that no submissions were called for.

But the irony of it is that prior to the bill being introduced, there were seven organisations that were contacted and they were invited to make comment. These seven representatives were from the petroleum and seabed mining industries, and five of them came back and said that they were also in support of the minor changes in this bill. But the irony is that they were invited to make comment on such a minor amendment to this bill, which is absolutely laughable when you stack it up against the consultation on something else of far more consequence and importance to that sector: their future and the future of the oil and gas industry here in New Zealand—a decision that has no justifiable basis. It’s certainly not rational, it’s certainly not an environmental benefit, it certainly has no economic sense, and the most bizarre thing is it actually has no benefit in terms of improving global emissions.

So we need to ask ourselves: is this a stalling tactic in getting this bill across the line? I’ve noticed over several weeks that we are dealing with such minor legislation here, or we are dealing with legislation left over from the former National-led Government. This goes to demonstrate yet again the gaping hole that there is in the work coming before this House and what is actually stacked up on the Order Paper.

This bill is simply putting right a drafting error in the original bill. We’ve heard all that today. Clause 5 inserts a new section 52A entitled “Cost recovery for boards of inquiry”, and that simply means that there may be recoverable costs from an applicant for the actual and reasonable expenses incurred in relation to a board of inquiry. These actual and reasonable costs are already recoverable under the Environmental Protection Authority in relation to their receiving, processing, and deciding on applications for marine consents, and so this bill simply brings it into consistency. It now aligns with the Environmental Protection Authority and the Resource Management Act of 1991, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise, and—let’s face it—this speech is going to be probably about as long as the name of this bill. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on this second reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill (EEZ), which amends the principal Act of the same name in 2012, which was in turn amended by the Resource Legislation Amendment Act in 2017 to include, basically, a board of inquiry for marine consents. We all have heard that there has been an error that was left off and there’s been no cost recovery. So, quite simply, this EEZ amendment bill adopts a user-pays system.

Now, it’s been a real pleasure to listen across the House. We’ve all accepted, except for the member Maureen Pugh, that there has been error across both sides, and I’d actually like to acknowledge Dr—

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speakers’ ruling 59/1, with regards to the member Deborah Russell who interjected on the previous speaker. I didn’t want to interrupt her speech at that time. She interjected while she was on her feet, moving about the Chamber, and was encouraged by those members around her at that time. I’d just like to, I guess, commend Maureen Pugh for her professionalism in continuing through that. I remind members that that is actually disorderly and would encourage, through you, Mr Assistant Speaker, reflection on that Speakers’ ruling.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I didn’t witness Dr Russell on her feet. I did hear the interjection, but the member is correct. I’ll take some advice on what the correct course of action will be. I thank the member for his intervention.

I would just, finally, like to make the comment that Dr Deborah Russell made a comment with real humility and acknowledged that there was a different way that we did these things and perhaps we can do better. Actually, I think that mea culpa on her part was probably a little bit overblown. She did a really good job chairing, and I think we across the floor can acknowledge that.

Finally, I would just say, in commending this bill to the House, that our Government values our marine environment. We have committed to a genuinely sustainable approach to the management of our seas and sea life. Let’s get on with it. I commend this bill to the House.

It’s a real pleasure to speak on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge, in the public gallery, supporters of Dan Bidois that are here not to hear me but to hear him in 20 minutes. They’ve got to put up with me in the meantime.

We support this bill. It’s one of many bills—many, many bills—that we’ve supported in this Parliament, in this current term. This bill is actually just correcting a simple drafting error in the Resource Legislation Amendment Act passed last year. We support it—the whole House does. But it does not warrant a stand-alone bit of legislation. For the benefit of those people in TV land, legislation has a first reading and then goes to select committee, second reading, and then committee of the whole House, where Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) are brought in and changes are made. There is the third reading, then we vote, and then it becomes law. This coalition Government could simply move a motion that we move from stage one to the endgame, and we would have supported it—job done. Or, failing that, they could have included it in an actual statutes amendment bill that’s tracking through Parliament right now.

Now, this bill is going to save the Government $1.6 million a year, so I support that, but, ironically, the cost of getting there—getting this legislation through the House—is going to come close to that. So the bill is either being used to kill time because they’re disorganised or going to be used as a Trojan Horse to bring an SOP in at committee stage, and I’m still undecided about which it’s going to be. But Minister Parker has hinted that he wants to make Resource Management Act (RMA) changes such as reinstating appeal rights on residential boundary issues. So it’s one or the other: it’s going to be used as a Trojan Horse, or it’s just a waste of time because they’re not organised. I don’t know which one to pick.

Introducing an SOP to introduce RMA reform would be a cynical lack of transparency, which this Government is known for—like the oil and gas ban.

💬 Hon Member: That’s right.

Yes. Fixing a drafting error simply ensures applicants for marine consents pay the costs of any board of inquiry. So it’s a mistake that was made, and it’s just crossing the i’s—sorry, dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. Ha, ha! I knew I’d get that mixed up. These changes are minor and they don’t require any more parliamentary time.

💬 Jamie Strange: You’re just warming up.

I’m just warming up. We supported this right at the get-go. In fact, we moved twice to move to the endgame to get it over and done with. We even suggested making it part of a statutes amendment bill. You didn’t take our sensational advice.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Who didn’t?

This Parliament—sorry, the coalition Government. In 2014, it cost $310 a minute to run Parliament. This Government is wasting time and money on a bill that we all agree on. Being a relatively new MP, I’m seeing this blatant waste of time on bills, and it’s just plain wrong. The RMA amendment itself was 700 clauses, 250 pages—40 significant changes. It’s a big bit of legislation, and someone made a mistake. Mistakes happen. The coalition Government have made them. We’ve made them. We fix up our mistakes, but we don’t have to go through a full process to get the job done.

But given this Government’s recent cases of dodgy behaviour, I have grave concerns. Is it a Trojan Horse or is it just incompetence? This Government is a closed shop, an evasive shambles of a Government this country has ever seen. You cannot blame us for having zero trust in this current Government. I commend this bill to the House. Let’s get on with it.

I just have to say, Mr King, that it’s so not like you to be all full of doom and gloom. It’s a bit depressing.

💬 Hon Member: Disappointing.

Yeah. But, anyway, thanks for the opportunity to speak on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker for his work on this. I think it’s important to acknowledge the Environment Committee, which I am not a part of, but it sounds like it’s been a process that they have worked well together on to get to this point.

So what the purpose of this bill is is just to allow the Minister to recover from an applicant the costs incurred in relation to a board of inquiry appointed under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. Whilst this is a minor and technical amendment, it’s actually a really important amendment to this bill because, without this amendment, it will cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. As Minister Salesa mentioned, it is about fairness. It’s about the taxpayer not having to foot the bill for this, but it also allows the opportunity for those that are applicants of a publicly notifiable marine consent to seek an estimate of costs likely to be recovered by the Minister; so it makes it fair for everybody all round.

As Angie Warren-Clark said, this Government values the marine environment and is committed to a sustainable approach to the management of our seas and sea life. This is something that I think is important to all New Zealanders, now and moving into the future. So when we have people that want to do something to the seabed that may be disruptive in some way, it is really important that we have these boards of inquiry to look at the potential implications or things that may happen because of it. So it’s important that the taxpayer doesn’t foot this bill—that it is a user-pays system when it comes to this. So I’m not going to go on for any longer. I just wish to say I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.