McKelvie Ian; Rurawhe AdrianIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure for me to take a short call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill—one which I didn't sit on the select committee for but it does affect an area that I have a specific interest in.I suppose I'm quite relieved really that I spend my life looking forward not backwards. I don't think there's much point in looking back but I did want to briefly outline a couple of issues that have been raised in the course of the speeches and one of them was by the Hon David Parker when he talked about the challenges that he has with the rules being slightly different whether we're inside or outside the New Zealand exclusive economic zone or in New Zealand territorial waters. I thought that made a bit of sense because if you think about the area of interest that I've got particularly around aquaculture and the things that happen with the fishing industry there's a high likelihood that you could in due course have consents being applied for or use applications being made for factors that are certainly affected by both of those areas of interest. I think there's a lot of sense in what the Hon David Parker said about trying to rationalise that challenge that we have with our current legislation.The other thing of course that this particular clause does and the bill does is have a significant impact on the way we consent aquaculture particularly and how we then recover those costs. I think the encouraging thing for me in this bill was the fact that the authorities or the Government have to give an accurate—or the consenting authority I guess—view of what those costs might be. Of course that's quite challenging as some of these applications are very expensive. But it will be very reassuring for those applicants to know that they have the opportunity to at least get some sort of an estimate of the costs and I guess hold that consenting authority to account later on if those costs are not necessarily adhered to.The other thing I think that's interesting in the course of this bill and it doesn't apply to this part of the bill is that if you look back at history it shows how important it is to put complicated pieces of legislation—and even simpler pieces of legislation—through the select committee process because it's so easy for mistakes to be made and we've seen a number of times in my time in this place where we've had to bring legislation back to the House. Only the other day we were talking about local government legislation where we have challenges with legislation for setting rates and things like that where they're not set properly and have to come through the House to be reviewed. So I think that this will probably just epitomise the importance of putting all legislation through the select committee process. I don't think there's an excuse for not doing that and even when we do put it through the select committee process it's still possible—and no matter how diligent and how long it's there for—for mistakes to be made in the course of implementing that legislation.I won't waste the time of the House any further. I think it's important that we do have these sorts of pieces of legislation and we have them in the order they should be—that they are correct. I also think that it's important that we look to the future around this type of legislation and think as to how we might review it in the future because there's no question it will need reviewing in the future. I don't know that we have our environmental legislation in the right space at all in New Zealand and it will be interesting to see where future Governments get to with that. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. Five minutes—Dr Deborah Russell.