Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister for the Environment): I rise to take a very brief call on this particular bill. It is the case that the devil is in the detail. The point was well made by my colleague Minister Parker when he said that there were a number of fixes that needed to happen but he was going to tackle this one first because fundamentally he didn't believe that costs should be attributed to the taxpayer when they should have rightly gone to private interests—in this case an applicant.I have heard the comments raised by the speaker before me Scott Simpson: the issues about filling in time in the House and that the bill is a guise for wider reform. Actually the bill is an opportunity to find a necessary response to a fix that was intended but never got done and that the Minister could have done but didn't and that the select committee in all its consideration of all the submissions that went before it still didn't pick up. So while the previous speaker has said it was the intention the simple fact of the matter was that it was never ever done. So one has to ask the question: was it really the intention to implement the fix that Minister Parker is proceeding to undertake today? Was it really the intention of the sponsoring member of the Resource Legislation Amendment Act to actually ensure that costs didn't pass on to taxpayers? Well we have to assume actually when the Resource Legislation Amendment Act was passed and there was no change of this nature that actually it was what we believe it to be—a set of amendments that intended to pass on costs to the private taxpayer.So I'm pleased that Minister Parker has addressed a small but important issue. I'm pleased to see the advice that has come forward in terms of the need to ensure that a fix is addressed. Although we have received advice that the exact costs that will be recovered aren't exactly known it's an important fix that has to take place. I would invite the select committee in their consideration of this matter to investigate further the range of cost recovery that could be contemplated or that will apply. I'm sure that will attract some attention and it certainly will attract attention from those submitters who were briefly contacted on this amendment.As I say Minister Parker recognises that it's a simple but important fix to address the issues around cost recovery.Hon Gerry Brownlee: It could be done today.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: It could be. The comment was made that it could be done today but by sending it to the select committee by ensuring that there's consultation on this necessary fix—where actually a user-pays system will impact on somebody—then through the submission process those views can be heard. We certainly don't want to ignore the views of people who will actually absorb the costs and the impact of the amendment of this particular bill.Again I didn't intend to take a huge call. It is a simple but necessary fix to the bill. It's important to ensure that submissions are heard at the select committee that the select committee get the opportunity to ask the questions on exactly the range of costs that may attribute to the applicant and investigate the impact of that and perhaps what the perceived issues might be around that to ensure that we don't have to come back to the issue again. In fact what we can be assured of—and certainly Minister Parker is that kind of Minister—is that a thorough consideration of all the issues will take place at the select committee. I'm sure once it is heard in full and comes back to this House we can be assured that it will achieve what it's intended to that costs don't pass on to taxpayers when they don't need to that those who will be absorbing the costs namely the applicants will be fully aware of the range of costs that will attribute to them but also the select committee would have had the opportunity to investigate whether there are any unintended consequences of attributing costs to users.