Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I think the Opposition needs to learn the difference between speed and haste. We want to do this we want to get it done quickly but we do not want to do it so hastily that yet another mistake is made.Now let me just go back to what this bill is about. This bill is about fixing up a mistake. We all concede that it was a mistake. We all concede that something went wrong in this 700-clause 250-page bill that the then Government brought to the House to reform the Resource Management Act (RMA). We all know that something went wrong and we all want to fix it. So exactly what are we trying to fix here? The reason why we want to fix it is because money is at stake because it's actually costing us money and we do want to get the job done but we want to do it properly.So in order to do this properly—and I'd like to just point out that this in fact is part of our job. Our job as parliamentarians is to discuss the legislation is to debate it in the House is to take it through a select committee process. There is no need to truncate processes just for the sake of rushing stuff through the House. This House's time is well spent debating this bill. Refusing to speak on the bill refusing to take the time to deal with it in select committee—that is a waste of the democratic parliamentary process that we have built up over generations and I urge the members of the Opposition to take this process seriously. It is our job to be here and to discuss this legislation and I am proud to be doing it. So let's have a think about exactly what is in this legislation. It does fix a mistake and it fixes a mistake that means that we cannot recover the costs associated with a board of inquiry into section 20 permissions under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act. So what is in this section 20 that matters so much? What's going on here? Well it's when people apply to conduct an activity a particular activity specified in section 20 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 within our exclusive economic zone which extends about 200 nautical miles from our coast—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Settle members.Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —or for the benefit of the Opposition about 370.4 kilometres for those who needed to know it.But more seriously let's have a look at what's in section 20. So the sorts of activities that we want to make sure we inquire into properly to make sure that they are conducted well using a board of inquiry which incurs expenses are listed in section 20 of the original Act. It's the construction placement alteration extension removal or demolition of a structure on or under the seabed. We're talking about stuff that's going on on the seabed. It's the construction placement alteration extension removal or demolition of a submarine pipeline on or under the seabed. It's the abandonment of a submarine pipeline that is on or under the seabed. It's the placement alteration extension or removal of a submarine cable on or from the seabed—so the removal of non-living natural material from the seabed or subsoil. It's the disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in a manner that is likely to have an adverse effect on the seabed or subsoil. It's the deposit of any thing or organism in or on or under the seabed. It's the destruction damage or disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in a manner that is likely to have an adverse effect on marine species or their habitat.This is important. This actually matters. We actually care about what happens on our seabed. We actually care about what happens in our exclusive economic zone. That's exactly why in order to do this we have a board of inquiry but they cost. And the way that the previous Government left the legislation that cost was not going to be sheeted home to the user. And like us they agreed that we need to make sure that whoever is using this whoever is going to benefit from it actually needs to pay for the costs. But the mistake that was left in the legislation means that right now it is not the user who is going to wear those costs; it is the taxpayers of this country. Now they keep on saying Let's rush it through. Let's get it done hastily. Let's make sure that we don't waste any more time and money." But already there are applications in place which now have to be funded by the taxpayer because of this mistake. So we are moving speedily but without haste to make sure that we get this right. That is exactly why we wanted it to go through a select committee process. It is exactly why we need to go through a process. It will be a truncated process it will go quickly but we will at least try to make sure we get the legislation right.You see I suspect that the real reason that the Opposition the former Government are just a little bit uptight about this is because it's actually an object lesson in MMP Government. You see we know that the former Government had a lot of trouble getting their RMA reforms through. We know they had to negotiate hard. We know that some of their support partners rejected many aspects of the RMA bill. We know that the particular reforms that have come through their reforms of the RMA have been left with perverse incentives sitting in there. That is because they couldn't easily get a majority for it in the House. On this side of the House we have three parties who are working together to make sure we get it right—three parties holding the majority of votes between them working to make sure that we will actually fix up this mess that has been left to us by the former Government.I just want to sort of address some of the issues that the members of the former Government raised—that members did—in particular this one. It was a line given to us by Mr Scott Simpson the Hon Scott Simpson that slogans are harder than Government. Well I agree: slogans are harder than Government. We know that that bill was complicated. We know that it became harder than that. Sure we know that they tried really hard to get it right but the fact is they didn't and that's why we're having to fix it up now and having to take the process through the full stages to make sure that we get it right. I mean they've been telling us that it's a minor technical matter but we already know that those boards of inquiry cost somewhere between $450000 and $900000 to pursue. That's a lot of money to be worn by the taxpayer.Now look the annual budget for this Government is usually in the order of $80 billion or so and you might think that somewhere between $450000 and $900000 doesn't matter so much in the context of a budget of $80 billion. But really a million here a million there—soon you're talking about real money. We actually do need to watch this and to make sure that it gets sheeted home.We've been told that in fact we're only having this process that we're only debating it in the House for a narrow political purpose. I suggest to the members of the Opposition that saving taxpayers' money is never a narrow political purpose. It's actually part of our job in this House. They've cried and cried and cried and are saying "We must be efficient; we must get this through properly." I tell you there is no efficiency in having to go back to fix mistakes. There is no efficiency in having to bring this to the House again. But we will not confuse efficiency with effectiveness. We will get this bill right. We will take it through a proper select committee process to make sure that we really do understand what is going on. We really will give people who will be affected by this bill the opportunity to come and talk to us to explain their concerns and to talk about how they will adjust to it.We will make sure we get it right and we will make sure that we save taxpayers' money not by wasting our democracy not by wasting our hard-fought-for democratic processes not by wasting the skills and expertise that we have built up through generations in how to develop good legislation but by processing this speedily but without haste. Madam Assistant Speaker I commend this bill to the House."