Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): The Opposition finds itself in an interesting position in regard to this motion from the Minister for the Environment. The Minister has indicated that this is a small technical administrative correction to a legislative mistake—an error an omission made in the principal Act last year. We've heard debate during the course of the first reading that the substantive bill that was being considered last year was a big bill—complicated and with many moving parts—but we've also heard from Government Ministers and members on that side about the need for urgency in resolving this matter if for no other reason than to protect the long-suffering taxpayer from the potential cost of a board of inquiry if a consent application was to be received before this legislation could be amended.Now it appears that there is one such consent application pending and that very shortly the process by which a board of inquiry is to be established and set up will need to commence and at that point costs start clocking up. At the moment unless this legislation is amended and amended quickly those costs will be sheeted home to the taxpayer.We on this side agreed as did the whole House—there was unanimity about the first reading decision—and at the end of my contribution in the first reading I sought leave to have this bill at the conclusion of the first reading proceed forthwith through all remaining stages—without debate and one vote forthwith. Now bizarrely and strangely that matter was objected to—as is of course allowed for—but when we heard contributions from a variety of Government members about the need for speed and haste in terms of sorting this out we find that their objection to sorting it out right now here today without further cost to taxpayers and without sending it to the long albeit truncated process of select committee that is according to the Minister—he's suggesting that it should be reported back in a shorter than normal period by 11 June this year. We find ourselves on this side wondering why the Government wants to have it both ways.Now we had two Ministers contribute to the first reading debate both of whom served on the select committee and they didn't pick this error up at the time. We know that the error occurred unintentionally because the Cabinet minute makes it very clear that the original intention of the Cabinet minute and the Cabinet proposal was to allow for charging for boards of inquiry by the applicant who was seeking consents under the exclusive economic zone legislation.So there's nothing here that any party in the Parliament disagrees with. It's a very simple piece of legislation. There isn't any contentious element to it. It is a remedial attempt to just correct—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! You're speaking to the substance of the bill. You need to be speaking to the substance of the motion at hand. Thank you.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: OK thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Well the substance of the motion is that the Minister wants a truncated select committee process and the Opposition is suggesting to the House to let's do it now. Why waste further time of the House of the Parliament and of the taxpayer on something on which there is unanimous agreement when in fact we could resolve this matter right here right now today in a way that would achieve legislative certainty and that would achieve an outcome that is agreed across the House by all members?This needs to be done it needs to be done quickly and it needs to be done efficiently. It's not contentious. It isn't a matter that is going to require debate or scrutiny or intention. This is a matter that has actually already been considered by a select committee in the last Parliament. The good people at Parliamentary Counsel Office made a drafting error and it seems now to me on this side that actually we're wasting the time of Parliament by even sending it to a select committee when with a simple agreement of members of the House we could find ourselves resolving this matter this afternoon here this very day in a way that would provide absolute certainty for the taxpayer and for any applicant who's seeking an exclusive economic zone consent under the legislation and in a way that was absolutely intended by Cabinet during the last Parliament. It was just merely a drafting error on behalf of the hard-working and professional folk who are our parliamentary counsel officers.So on this side of the House we would like to hear from Government members as to why they feel it necessary to send this bill upon which there is unanimity across the House to a select committee. We heard at first reading a frankly embarrassing speech from the chair of the Environment Committee who clearly wasn't able to divert herself from her pre-prepared speech notes to juggle nimbly her way to the situation where on this side of the House we're prepared to do the job today. Get it done. Do it now. Do the job.So I'm keen to hear from Government members as to why they want to actually delay this process. Yes the select committee doesn't have much work on its agenda at the moment. This does seem to be a strange piece of legislation to be the first Government legislation to go before the committee. This is not a piece of legislation or a time frame that one would have thought was the most demanding environmental matter on the Government's agenda. Yet the Minister has come to the House and he's said Look we want to have a truncated select committee process. We want the committee to do its business which should take very little time—in fact probably no time at all—and report back by 11 June this year." Now what we're saying is well why wait until 11 June when we're ready willing and able as a Parliament to legislate today to resolve this matter once and for all to give this matter finality and to make it certain for everybody involved.The one application that is before the Environmental Protection Authority will require attention sooner rather than later. On this side of the House we'd like to help the Government. We'd like to help them work their way through this adjustment to Government and find that they can with the cooperation of the Opposition—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! We are getting a bit repetitious. Do you have any new material to add to this debate?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I think that there may be other members on this side who want to participate in this debate Madam Assistant Speaker. Certainly we are keen to hear from Government members as to why they think it necessary to have a truncated select committee process at all. I'm sure that there will be a number of them including the Hon Ron Mark who will want to make a contribution to this debate on why this select committee should be taking through to 11 June to do its work when we could solve it today."