Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill

We are returning to Part 1A of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. When we left this during our last exciting instalment we were looking, particularly on this side of the Chamber, at some elements of the Minister for the Environment’s substantial Supplementary Order Paper 100. In particular, some questions had been asked of the Minister around both the impact of new clause 17A and also the meaning of the replaced clause 17(3).

On the latter, the Minister, I think, the last time we were debating this, was acknowledging that there was no intent to create a situation of a continuous loop of an application, where an application, if it were incomplete, would be returned, and the person would then be able to put in a new application, and that would then start the process again. The concern we had is that we did not think clause 42 of the bill, which is covered by new clause 17(3), was sufficiently clear to allow people to be able to understand the way in which the process would work for incomplete applications. So I think the Minister at that time was going to go and get some advice on whether or not a further Supplementary Order Paper was required to give that clarity about what happens with an incomplete application.

Clause 42 of the bill talks about the Environmental Protection Authority returning an incomplete application if it decides that it “does not include an impact assessment that complies with section 40”, and says that “The EPA must return an incomplete application and give the applicant a written explanation for its finding that the application is incomplete within 10 working days after the application is received by the EPA.” Under new clause 17(3), that incomplete application then becomes a new application if it is resubmitted. So we were seeking some clarity from the Minister around whether or not there need to be further changes made to ensure that there is an understanding that this is not a process that could simply go on and on, ad infinitum, with incomplete applications being returned and new applications being put in. We would appreciate some clarity from the Minister on new clause 17(3).

The other matter is around new clause 17A, which essentially says that planned petroleum activities can commence and continue under this law. My colleague Moana Mackey raised a concern about the Petrobras application off the East Coast of New Zealand, where it has had approval for seismic activity. Would this clause mean that it could move to drilling without having to go through under the new rules? We have not yet had a response from the Minister to indicate whether or not that is, in fact, the impact of new clause 17A. Obviously, it is a concern for us. We are not talking just about existing activities here; this is about planned activities. We on this side of the Chamber want to ensure that we understand what this clause means. It would provide to us significant concern if, indeed, a planned activity meant, in the case of Petrobras, that just because it got the approval around seismic work, it has a continuing approval for drilling, rather than it having to go back to the new processes that are established under this bill.

They are the two concerns that we have got around Part 1A. I hope the Minister is going to be able to respond to us and to indicate whether or not she is looking at some amendment to clause 17(3) and to clarify the meaning of clause 17A, because a planned activity is quite a different thing from an existing activity. Certainly, people on the East Coast of New Zealand have had significant concerns about what Petrobras has been doing. They would be very alarmed to learn that just because it had approval for seismic surveys and seismic testing it would then be able, under this clause, to go on and move to drilling. That kind of loophole is something that we on this side of the Chamber are very concerned to make sure we are not putting in.

We expressed our concern at having this Supplementary Order Paper put forward at short notice. Hopefully, the Minister has had time in the interim period to answer some of our questions. I look forward to the Minister taking a call and answering those two questions.

I am happy to take a call on Part 1A. It is quite a short part of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, and so I am more than happy to address Opposition members’ genuine queries, in the expectation that we should be able to move through this part with some ease. The issue that Mr Robertson has raised around clause 17 and my proposed new clause 17(3), we did touch on last time the bill was in Committee, and I gave Mr Robertson at that stage the assurance that there was not a cyclical process created. It seems that he just wants confirmation of that with the benefit of some reflection, and I can assure Opposition members that I went away and double-checked that point. I went back to the Parliamentary Counsel Office and checked with the drafting and it has come back and absolutely and categorically made it very clear that it is as I indicated to the member the last time, and there is no possibility of a continual loop, which he was concerned about. So that addresses the first point.

The second point, I think, can be addressed equally quickly, and that is the concern that Ms Mackey raised around a particular application—and obviously I do not want to start discussing particular applications. I think the point the member is referring to really relates to Part 4 of the bill, which talks about transitional activities right now, so I would rather we had that discussion then. The clauses 17 and 17A relate to the situation once this regime is in place and we have a set of regulations. If in the future those regulations are changed, and people have started an activity, whether it be planned in terms of committing to rigs and drilling programmes and the like, with one set of regulations and at some point a future Parliament promulgates new regulations, that covers how the transition works between those two. So I do not think it is probably quite the concern members were expecting.

💬 Moana Mackey: It might be the same issue, though.

Well, it could be, but, of course, that is something the Parliament of the day can take into account when it promulgates those regulations—the point being that people are entitled to proceed on the basis of the law as it stands. They work on that basis, and if there is a change we need to have some mechanism for making sure that that is seemly. So that is the intention of this part of the bill. No doubt we will have more discussion on the original transitional provisions as we move into this regime when we get to Part 4.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 102 in the name of Gareth Hughes to clause 15 be agreed to.