Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I intend to take only a brief call on this the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill.Hon Shane Jones: Why? Why?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member opposite Mr Shane Jones questions why. That is because this corrects a minor drafting error in a bill last year. It was the largest bill that was passed in the course of the Key-English Government. It had made over 140 changes to both the Resource Management Act and to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.This bill does two things. In the course of that legislation new Part 3A was added to the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) legislation. If you look at the Cabinet minute it was clear that the intent of the Government was that Part 3A would not be subject to the powers that a Minister has to direct the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). That was not carried through in the way in which the legislation was finally drafted. It certainly said a direction could not be provided for Part 3 but it did not specifically refer to Part 3A.The second issue in the bill is in respect of cost recovery for marine permits. The larger bill as a consequence of improving the economics within the Environmental Protection Authority aligned the board of inquiry process with the decision-making process of the EEZ legislation. It failed to provide for insurance that the EPA could recover the costs in that change. Again—and I note there were 241 Cabinet minutes from that—if we refer back to the Cabinet minutes they make it quite plain that the Government's intent was for cost recovery. So what this bill does is correct those two minor drafting errors.I've listened to the Minister's introductory speech and he has made criticisms of the previous Government. I would draw to the attention of members opposite that it was actually members on this side of the House—National members—who insisted that that bill be subject to a full select committee process and it was actually members of the Labour Party that opposed the substantive Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) going through a select committee. I would suggest that any Minister that's brought a bill over 500 pages long through the process of the Parliament would not be surprised that sometimes there's a legislative error of this sort.Hon Shane Jones: Unheard of!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Jones says Unheard of!"; my response back would be "Only those that have done nothing have never made a mistake." Now I would finally—Hon Scott Simpson: Ask "Matua Shane".Hon Dr NICK SMITH: "Matua Shane" might in some time reflect on that.The last point I'd make is that the Minister made a big deal of the fact that the longer that this lack of cost recovery exists there's a risk that someone may lodge an application for a marine permit with the Environmental Protection Authority and not have the capacity for cost recovery. My colleague Scott Simpson who heard the submissions on the original bill very wisely said that this bill was totally consistent with the original intent and sought the leave of the House to get the bill passed through all stages today and to correct that error. It is somewhat unusual for a Government member to block that occurring and that really does raise a question. Actually the Government seems more interested in using this bill for a narrow political purpose than actually acting in the Government's and New Zealand's interests of ensuring that this minor error is immediately corrected. The last point I'd make is that I note that on the Table of the House is a 600-page SOP on another bill. If there is a lesson to learn for Parliament from this amending bill it is that where we do have SOPs at the very least send them to a select committee. And even when you send them to a select committee for very large substantive reforms there will be drafting errors and what our job collectively as parliamentarians is is to ensure that they are minimised. So National is indicating it supports this bill. Our only question for the Government is why we would not want to get on correct this error today and ensure that there is no potential cost to the taxpayer."