van de Molen Tim; Rurawhe AdrianTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a privilege to rise and take a late evening call on such an exciting piece of legislation going through the House. The first reading of the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill—this is fantastic. It's great to see another fine piece of legislation drafted under the previous Government finally coming to fruition now under this Government. I'm sure they're grateful of the constant pipeline of work we had lined up for them that they are able to roll out. We hear constantly about how there's more and more work in the pipeline but they're doing a great job of hiding it from us. It's great to see this one coming through. I would just like to echo the comments from a previous member on our side Sarah Dowie when she made reference to the special nature of our marine environment. I think that's something all New Zealanders can relate to; it is indeed special. That's certainly why under the previous Government we set up 11 new marine reserves—more than any other Government. Agnes Loheni: How many? TIM VAN DE MOLEN: 11 new marine reserves under the previous Government; a fine thing indeed to protect what is such an important part of our environment here in New Zealand. I'm sure the current Government would like to continue doing work in that space and I'd like to suggest perhaps they start with the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary. Perhaps Mr Shaw might like to give some thought on that. So here we are with this particular piece of legislation looking to put some controls and measures in place around minimising the likelihood of an oil spill or an incident and then the subsequent impact of that. It's about getting the balance though between the risk of that impact occurring and what that impact would be as well as then the cost to mitigate that potential impact and the implications that cost would have on business. Now this Government has never shied away from the opportunity to charge much more than is needed of any business or any individual. Obviously we've seen that here when previous recommendations have suggested a cap of $600 million is an appropriate level of assurance required under this legislation and the Government's doubled it. Hey if they can charge more why not?—seems to be the general theme. Of course we want to minimise any risks and the Rena example has been bought up several times. Actually I'd just like to acknowledge not only the volunteers that helped out with that but also the Defence Force that played a significant role in that clean-up exercise as well. These sorts of things are very passionately supported by Kiwis because of that passion I mentioned earlier about the environment and the marine environment in particular. So we need to get that level of protection in place but at the same time we need to be ensuring that we're not unduly impacting or imposing significantly higher costs that are unwarranted in terms of the risk versus the cost to offset that risk on businesses who are participating in this industry. Of course we know the Government's looking to ban—or has banned—all future oil and gas exploration. Indeed it seems they'd rather the industry didn't exist at all and perhaps this is a surreptitious way to try and influence that ongoing change in that space. But we certainly support having some rules in place and we feel the original $600 million amount was an appropriate level. So it'll be interesting to see that canvassed at select committee in terms of the reasoning around a potential change and whether indeed that is necessary. So look we certainly support progressing this through—as I mentioned drafted under the previous Government—and look forward to seeing the developments through select committee and beyond. So I commend it to the House. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Priyanca Radhakrishnan—five minutes.