Sio William: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionSio William: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4531. Text is subject to correction.]Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):May I just briefly pay my respects to two gentlemen who passed away whose funerals earlier today members of this House participated in or attended: firstly Jerry Collins who was an iconic son of P-Town; and of course Peter Conway a former representative of the Council of Trade Unions. Both of them were quite passionate about this country of ours and both of them lived life to the fullest. I want to join with others and simply pay my respects to them.This bill here has only four clauses and it received only five submissions from the public. As to the first clause the title clause which the Government is asking us to debate no one made a submission. I think it might be fitting if the Government moved a motion at some stage for us to debate the whole piece of legislation as one part. I hate doing that but it just seems like we are having to try to fix up the mistakes of this Government time and time again. So I just put that for the Government to consider.I do want to say that of the people who made submissions on this bill three of them were opposed to the bill in totality one of them did not show any indication one way or the other and the other one was the association of the industry which was in favour of the bill. There was a submitter who caught my attention. This submitter raised other issues that relate to the title clause and her name is Tanea Tangaroa. She simply said: “We are not happy that Shell Todd will possibly be granted another perpetual licence to explore further wells and drill in an area that is inhabited by the last 55 Maui dolphins.” So you could say a potential title for this particular bill is one that acknowledges that 55 Māui’s dolphins are put at risk. Although the Government would look at only one side of the argument—the economics of this proposal—I think there is a much broader issue and a title about putting at risk the 55 Māui’s dolphins would broaden out the debate so that it included other issues that are of concern to people.The reason I think why no one made a submission on the title clause is that the public were not given sufficient time to take note that this bill was coming through. This is about the third or fourth time that the Government has had to change the original Act that it introduced in 2012. The reason why those five people did not make any submission on the title clause was that they could not figure out whether the Government was coming or going with the way that it has amended this particular bill over and over again.I put it to the Committee and I say to the Minister that we should be debating the substantive clause which is clause 4 because no one made any submissions on clause 1 clause 2 or clause 3. It was the substantive clause—clause 4—that the submissions paid attention to and I think we need to debate clause 4 significantly in the time that we have got to debate this particular clause.The title Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill is just a mouthful of a title and it should give an indication to our public about what on earth it means. Often it causes suspicion if we are not clear in the way that we write legislation. It causes suspicion. People ask what the Government is trying to hide when the title of a bill does not give clarity about what we are trying to do. As my colleague Dr Megan Woods has said in essence we have attempted to work with the Government to help it right the wrongs and the mistakes it has made in this particular part of legislation. We have said that based on the amended change that the select committee made and brought back to this House we are content to pass the legislation. But I have to say now looking at that clause that the Government needs to be clearer in future about what it wants to do.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I just remind the member of rules around repetition. We have heard this I do not know how many times now.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Well I will just make it brief then—I will just make it brief. All I am saying is that the Government prides itself on being open and transparent—any Government should—and one of the very first things that an open and transparent Government ought to do is to be clear about its legislation and the first thing that it ought to do is be clear about the title. The present title gives no indication to the general public—particularly those who are interested in what we do and want to hold this Government to account—as to what this bill does. So I would move—maybe I should not move. I suggest to the Government that we debate the substantive clause which is clause 4. Thank you.Clause 1 agreed to.