O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I want to take only a short call on this part of the bill just to say two things—first of all to agree with what Eugenie Sage has just said about the whole effect of this part of the bill. It is perfectly clear that what is intended here is to actually minimise opportunities for the public to as little as 20 days for making submissions on what could be very complex applications. That is as Eugenie Sage said consistent with many of the other provisions in the bill. I am not going to spend long on that because I think Eugenie Sage actually said it all very well and there is no point in my repeating it all. But that is the fundamental reason why New Zealand First could not possibly support this part of the bill. People do need to have much longer than 20 days to be able to assess and to submit on what can be very complex applications.I want to move on to another specific point and this is the second thing I want to say. That is in relation to the new section 17SB inserted by clause 178 of the bill. In that it says in subsection (1) If the Minister is satisfied that an application obviously does not comply with or is obviously inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or any relevant conservation management strategy or conservation management plan he or she may decline the application." That is a very strange piece of drafting. In fact I think it is quite amateurish drafting—with all due respect to the drafters. Why is the term "obviously" there? It is a highly subjective term. How can something be obvious—is another issue. But I just think it is deficient drafting.It is clearly intended that the term "obviously" is to qualify the terms "non-compliance" and "inconsistency" otherwise the word would not be there. So it is there to qualify "non-compliance" or "inconsistency" with the Act and therefore it is open to the Minister to approve an application even if it is not compliant or is not consistent because it is not "obviously" so. That is actually what would be open to a court to find. So why on earth is this term "obviously" there if it is not for any reason other than that which I have said? I think the Minister should look at that and if he is genuine about the whole system that is set out here he would delete the term "obviously" because it is highly problematic and in my view actually creates more problems than it solves.I want to refer to what it says in the commentary about this. There is one sentence only about it and it says this: "As amended new section 17SB would clarify that the Minister may decline obviously non-complying applications (without having to make a decision on this within the originally proposed 20-working-day period)." What on earth is that supposed to mean? It does not to me add any clarity to it at all. In fact I believe that the addition of the word "obviously" actually does exactly the opposite. It makes it very unclear in terms of what can be declined and what cannot be.So I just want to point that out to the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith. That is another reason we would vote against it. If the Minister wishes to simply gloss over that that is fine. But I say to him it is an obvious defect that the word "obviously" has been put in there. If you took the word "obviously" out—Phil Twyford: Obviously.DENIS O'ROURKE: Obviously if you took the word "obviously" out it would not actually change what I believe the subsection is intended to mean. But the addition of the word "obviously" actually creates a difficulty because it can be taken only to qualify the inconsistency or the non-compliance. What that means I am not sure but it is an issue and I just draw it to the Minister's attention. We will be voting against it anyway."