Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand to speak also to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill in its second reading today. And this really is an odd bill to be debating in the House here today and I consider it a waste of the House's time to be perfectly frank. It was a waste of time of the select committee it was a waste of time of the advisers of the parliamentary counsel and of the committee's secretariat that supported the select committee to be making such a non-controversial amendment. All parties here agreed to the change. However that side of the House insisted that it be put through this process consuming valuable staff and committee time and also this House's time.It's such a minor amendment to be making and it could have been easily dealt with as part of a statutes amendment bill. And as was suggested by my very astute colleague here beside me—the Hon Scott Simpson in his first reading speech even sought leave of the House that this bill proceed forthwith through all remaining stages without debate and on one vote. But that side of the House wouldn't go there and we may wonder why. It certainly wasn't in the interests of expediency or efficiency and it certainly wasn't in the interests of openness and transparency that we hear so much about but we are yet to witness in practice. And it wasn't in the interests of any potential submitters because the process was so truncated that no submissions were called for. But the irony of it is that prior to the bill being introduced there were seven organisations that were contacted and they were invited to make comment. These seven representatives were from the petroleum and seabed mining industries and five of them came back and said that they were also in support of the minor changes in this bill. But the irony is that they were invited to make comment on such a minor amendment to this bill which is absolutely laughable when you stack it up against the consultation on something else of far more consequence and importance to that sector: their future and the future of the oil and gas industry here in New Zealand—a decision that has no justifiable basis. It's certainly not rational it's certainly not an environmental benefit it certainly has no economic sense and the most bizarre thing is it actually has no benefit in terms of improving global emissions.So we need to ask ourselves: is this a stalling tactic in getting this bill across the line? I've noticed over several weeks that we are dealing with such minor legislation here or we are dealing with legislation left over from the former National-led Government. This goes to demonstrate yet again the gaping hole that there is in the work coming before this House and what is actually stacked up on the Order Paper.This bill is simply putting right a drafting error in the original bill. We've heard all that today. Clause 5 inserts a new section 52A entitled Cost recovery for boards of inquiry" and that simply means that there may be recoverable costs from an applicant for the actual and reasonable expenses incurred in relation to a board of inquiry. These actual and reasonable costs are already recoverable under the Environmental Protection Authority in relation to their receiving processing and deciding on applications for marine consents and so this bill simply brings it into consistency. It now aligns with the Environmental Protection Authority and the Resource Management Act of 1991 and I commend it to the House. Thank you."