Marine Legislation Bill

We move to Part 2, which is a debate on clauses 88 to 112, schedule 3, and proposed new schedule 4.

It is with much disappointment that I rise to take a call on Part 2 of this Marine Legislation Bill—in particular, with reference to Supplementary Order Paper 347 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Once again, we find the National Government removing the ability for New Zealanders to have their say on consenting processes surrounding oil and gas exploration. Once again, it is watering down environmental protections. Once again, it is not doing it through the regular process of this Parliament, which would have seen a select committee process that would see debate and submissions on the particular amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper; rather, it is dumping amendments into the Chamber during the Committee stage on a completely different piece of legislation. Part 2 actually amends the exclusive economic zone legislation that was passed last year. Here we have the marine legislation, a piece of legislation that was actually primarily amending the Maritime Transport Act, and what we find is that we are amending another piece of legislation to undo changes that we were promised at the time would not be made.

What this Supplementary Order Paper does in clause 89 is take the three classifications of marine consents, which are currently “permitted”, “discretionary”, and “prohibited”. “Permitted” means that it is allowed to happen and does not have to go through a big process. “Prohibited”, obviously, cannot happen at all, so there is no process. And “discretionary” is where the bulk of the exclusive economic zone legislation detail lay, because that is the process through which a company could apply to carry out an economic activity in the exclusive economic zone, and the Environmental Protection Authority would run a marine consent process. We were critical of that process for a number of reasons when that bill went through Parliament, not least of all being that there was no ability to appeal, as there is under the Resource Management Act. There was only the ability to appeal on points of law, not on points of substance. But at least there was a process within that exclusive economic zone legislation for the public, for environmental organisations, for geotechnical experts, and for industry experts to have their say and their input into whether or not that marine consent should be granted.

At the time, there was a lot of public concern that the exclusive economic zone legislation was far weaker and far more permissive than the Resource Management Act. That Act applies out to 12 nautical miles and then beyond that the exclusive economic zone legislation governs all that activity. Labour raised serious questions as to why you would have two completely different regimes operating side by side and regulating exactly the same activity. The answer to that question, as one of the submitters during the select committee process on the exclusive economic zone legislation told us, was that it was deliberately more permissive because it was deliberately going to allow activities to go ahead that possibly would not have been consented under the Resource Management Act because of the risk factors involved when it comes to environmental protection.

So there was deep concern about this particular piece of legislation. But whenever these concerns were raised, the then Minister of Energy and Resources, Phil Heatley, would reassure communities. He went to Kaikōura and he reassured that community there, because they are very concerned about the impact of oil and gas exploration on their whale watching tourism economic activities down there. They are very, very concerned, and Phil Heatley said to them: “I promise you that there will be a process within the marine consenting process where you can have your say on any application for oil and gas exploration in the exclusive economic zone.” That was a promise that the National Government made when that legislation was going through Parliament. That was the reason it gave for disregarding all the other concerns that were being raised about the legislation, concerns about how permissive it was, concerns about the lack of environmental protection, concerns about taking away appeal rights on points of substance—all these concerns were to be addressed by the fact that the public would be allowed to have their say through the consenting process. So here we are, not a year later, with an amendment that removes that right, with an amendment that now says that we are not going to have just the categories of permitted, discretionary, and prohibited activities; we are going to introduce a new definition for a non-notified discretionary activity. This is a discretionary activity where the public will not get to have their say, and the Minister has already indicated that oil and gas exploration for the drilling of exploratory wells is going to be a non-notified discretionary activity.

Well, the Gulf of Mexico disaster was not an exploratory well. This is not a low-risk activity, as the Minister for the Environment has tried to claim. She said: “Oh, it will happen over the course of about 6 weeks. You know, it is fairly low-risk.” Well, tell that to the people who had to deal with the Deepwater Horizon event in the Gulf of Mexico, which was in an exploratory well and in one that was in shallower water than that of some of the applications that are currently being considered—much shallower water than the waters in much of the most recent block offer for 2014. The Minister’s response to that was then: “Oh, well, we write legislation for what should happen, not what does happen.” Basically, she is saying that nothing can ever go wrong, so she is writing legislation on the basis that it will never go wrong and ignoring the fact that it does sometimes go wrong. On this side of the Chamber, we think that, actually, the legislation and the regulation should be robust enough to ensure that all those protections are in place. A part of that is very, very much that public input process. It is not just the public who input during that; it is geotechnical experts, it is environmental experts, it is people from the industry who are not currently connected but who want to have their say, people who have experience in the oil and gas industry, people who know a lot more than the collective wisdom of even this Parliament because of their own experiences. Why that is important is that there are real concerns around the Environmental Protection Authority’s ability to process these marine consents now, completely void of any input from any outside experts or individuals or organisations. The authority does not have an investigative capability. It does not have that. So how is it going to be able to now make a crucial decision on whether or not this stuff should go ahead, based on a complete lack of information from those who would be interested?

We know this because when we sit on a select committee, hardly ever do we get a piece of legislation that goes through without amendment after we have sat down and heard submissions. That is why the select committee process is such a good one. That is why it produces good law. We do not have the monopoly on all the information in our Parliament or in our select committee or even in the Environmental Protection Authority. We get an awful lot of benefit out of that process of having people come along and submit. I do not think there is a single member in this House who would say that the submissions on bills at the select committee do not add an awful lot to the legislation and the changes that are potentially then made before it comes back to the House.

This change could have gone to a select committee, because this decision to introduce a new non-notified discretionary classification was adopted by Cabinet on 25 February 2013, and this bill was reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on 27 February 2013—2 days later. So there is no reason why this could not have gone to a select committee. The Minister knew that this change was going to be made. Months of work would have led up to this finally going to Cabinet and being approved, and all the while this legislation was sitting at the select committee and no one was told that this was coming. Again, this is exactly what we saw with the changes to the Crown minerals bill where Minister Bridges held off his protest ban Supplementary Order Paper from the select committee until we had reported back, and then threw it into the Committee stage. This is exactly the same thing—exactly the same abuse of process happening again—in order to avoid the scrutiny that comes from a proper select committee process.

The interesting link back to that protest ban in that Supplementary Order Paper on the Crown minerals legislation is that Minister Bridges could have instead amended this Act, the Marine Transport Act, to carry over the provisions that exist for dealing with dangerous or reckless activity at sea in our territorial waters out into the exclusive economic zone. So not only could he have done it under the Crown minerals bill and actually have given it to the select committee but he could have done it under this piece of legislation as well, which actually governs that dangerous and reckless behaviour in our territorial waters, except what we know now from the regulatory impact statement, which was finally released once Treasury forced him to put it up on the website, is that it was not about banning dangerous or reckless activity. It was about banning protesting—full stop.

The Government does not want anything getting in the way of the only plan it has for regional economic development in this country. Here we are again, greasing the wheels. Here we are again, with another broken promise. National promised that the public would be able to have its say, and here it is again, taking it away in a Supplementary Order Paper on a completely different piece of legislation, about which the Minister says: “Oh, well, we alerted people to it back in April.” Why was the select committee not told about it, when she would have been doing the work on that Cabinet paper for the entire time that this bill was at the select committee over those months leading up to the reporting back on 27 February? The reason is that when it comes to watering down environmental protections, when it comes to greasing the wheels for industry as much as possible, and when it comes to shutting the general public out, this National Government will stop at nothing.

It is an absolute delight to take a short call on this omnibus bill, the Marine Legislation Bill. Part 1, as we have heard, amends the Maritime Transport Act, and Part 2 amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. We as a Government are committed to building a more competitive and productive economy, and this bill highlights our commitment to creating strong and sensible legislation that works. It aims to improve the clarity, consistency, and effectiveness of the Maritime Transport Act, as we heard earlier, and it will also provide more certainty around the laws involved, as well as improving safety, enforcement practices, and environmental protection. We know that successful economic and environmental policy can, and must, go hand in hand. This is why we are putting in place policies to help local economies that rely on their ports and harbours and to ensure that our unique environment is protected.

As we have heard, the reforms will provide greater certainty and reduce compliance costs for industry, increase efficiency by avoiding the duplication of processes, enhance environmental effects management—this is dear to all our hearts—and, of course, provide the opportunity, as we heard earlier, for improved public and iwi participation. This is a decisive piece of legislation that highlights our commitment to building a more competitive and productive economy. We strongly believe that the natural environment is our greatest asset. That is why the bill places significant focus on addressing gaps in our current legislation and better aligning regional and national interests.

I have made no secret in the past of being a “Naki” boy, and I am proud of coming from “Taradise”—I am proud of coming from “Taradise”. I have grown up with the oil industry. From my earliest years I can remember a “nodding donkey” down on Ngāmotu Beach, which at one stage was the longest-producing oil well in the world—the longest-producing oil well in the world. As we would go there—we would go swimming occasionally—we would see oil actually coming up from the sand because it does that, such is the richness of “Taradise”. That oil industry, which is worth $2 billion—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: How much?

—$2 billion—to our country, is the third or fourth leg of our economic prosperity, and it coexists with an outstanding, world-leading dairy industry and, of course, a wonderful tourism industry for those New Zealanders and world travellers who see the joy and delights to be found in that blessed province of Taranaki.

Of course, this would not be the case were it not for an incredible concentration by the major players in the industry on health, security, environmental, and safety issues within the industry. That is why it gladdens my heart to see clause 90 in Part 2, which I understand the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, in a unanimous display of good faith and good fellowship, recommended be amended so that it could insert definitions related to the discharge of harmful substances and the dumping and incineration of waste and other matter at sea, and insert a new definition of “mining activity” that would ensure that this term covered prospecting as well as other events, so that the new definition of “mining discharge” would ensure that hydraulic fracturing—a very worthwhile technique used to improve the productivity of our fields there and used with due respect to the environment—would be subject to the legislation.

So, as a proud boy from “the Naki” and someone who is determined to see New Zealand achieve its best economic potential with due regard to the environment, I commend this bill to the Committee.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to speak on Part 2 of this bill, the Marine Legislation Bill. I want to talk about two Supplementary Order Papers in particular—two amendments. The first is Supplementary Order Paper 347, which inserts new clause 102A. I do not want to bore anyone watching Parliament TV with a whole bunch of jargon. What this amendment does is it gives Kiwis no say when it comes to consenting exploratory wells in all of New Zealand’s deep water. Why? Because the Government does not want to give Kiwis a say. Why? Because it does not like what it will hear. The fact is that New Zealanders do not want the risk to our environment and economy from risky deep-sea drilling or risky exploratory drilling that they saw in the Gulf of Mexico from an exploratory well 1.5 kilometres down, when we know we could see drilling twice as deep in New Zealand’s waters. They do not want to see that, and that is why in this amendment the Government is shutting away their ability to have a say.

It is embarrassing for the Minister of Transport to have to amend this bill. I mean, this is legislation that Parliament passed last year, legislation relating to a consenting regime in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. Here is the Government having to change it again only a year later, and it is doing it through a back door. Instead of doing it through a normal select committee process, where an amendment would have its due diligence from a New Zealand Bills of Rights Act vet, this Government is introducing it through a back door, through an amendment to take away Kiwis’ rights to discretionary exploratory drilling. It is just not on. It is the Kiwi way that we should have a say.

It is deeply ironic that this Government in partnership with Dulux is going to ask Kiwis what colour it should be painting Department of Conservation huts—of course, in Dulux paint—but not what they think about deep-sea exploratory drilling. This is an activity that could affect all of us. In the Gulf of Mexico we saw 600,000 tonnes of oil enter the environment. It makes the Rena look like a puddle. Three hundred tonnes had a huge impact on the taxpayer’s books, on the local economy, and on the local citizenry, yet here we are looking at potentially 600,000 tonnes of oil, and the Government wants to do it without giving the public any sort of say.

I would like to ask the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, what she is worried about and why she is scared about hearing from the people of New Zealand. I am curious as to why in the Minister’s explanatory note it says that “The amendment requires the Minister, when recommending whether regulations should provide for a discretionary activity to be a non-notified activity, to take into account the desirability of allowing the public to be heard …”. The desirability of allowing the public to be heard! I find this language incredible. It is anti - New Zealand, it is anti our values, and it should not be going through this back-door, sneaky path.

What we have seen, of course, is that this is a pattern of this Government, particularly in the energy and resources sector. We saw the Minister of Energy and Resources, Simon Bridges, in an embarrassing display of poor lawmaking, having to amend the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. We had the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill in front of this House. Now it is an Act, and it saw the Anadarko amendment, which took away Kiwis’ right to protest at sea, an honourable Kiwi tradition. We are seeing a process of this Government circumventing normal legislative due diligence and good process, and it is all for the outcome that is to support the oil industry and the extractive economy in New Zealand. It goes to the heart of the Government’s “drill it, mine it, frack it” approach to economic development. That is no economic strategy. There is no plan, there is no innovation, and there is no looking to the future. It is simply hoping that someone will find something and will not leave too much of a mess as they get it out, and we will clip the ticket, albeit with the fourth-lowest tax and royalty rates in the world for oil and gas.

The Green Party has a clear position when it comes to deep-sea oil drilling. With our amendment we would rather see deep-sea exploratory drilling made a prohibited activity. That is what more than 99 percent of submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee wanted—not this non-notified, discretionary activity class but a prohibited activity. I hear the Labour Party talk about deep-sea drilling an awful amount, but I still do not hear what its position is on this bill.

Also in respect of Part 2 of the bill we have new Supplementary Order Paper 363, introduced by me. This amendment would enact the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and insert a new section 37(5) in clause 105 that would amend the exclusive economic zone legislation to simply make seabed mining in benthic protected areas prohibited. At the moment we have the inconsistent situation where bottom trawlers cannot trawl within 100 metres of the seabed and dredgers cannot dredge the seabed, but we see mining companies granted permits by this Government to literally vacuum up the seabed in benthic protected areas. It makes a mockery of our marine protection laws to allow this. [Bell rung] Thank you, Mr Chair. I will be very brief because I need to get to the Business Committee. My Supplementary Order Paper 363 simply means that benthic protected areas would actually be protected. I think that if you cannot trawl and you cannot dredge, you should not be able to literally vacuum up the seabed. I think that most New Zealanders would agree with me.

It is akin to the schedule 4 mining proposals, about which New Zealanders stood up and said that some parts of our country are off limits. Some parts of our country have intrinsic value. In fact, when you look at the economic opinion on it, you see that we are stronger and more prosperous as a country by having protected areas on land. When it comes to the sea, we have got only 0.4 percent—that is less than half of 1 percent—protected in marine protected areas. The Government should not be allowing mining of benthic protected areas.

Again, I would like to issue a challenge to the Labour Party. I would like to see it support my amendment. I do not think that the Labour Party stands for mining marine protected areas. I do not think that its members want to see the Labour Party voting for mining marine protected areas and they are seeing an inconsistent approach. So the challenge is that the votes will be cast, and the Labour Party can make its opinion—it can cast its votes and make its choices its way—but let us hope that the Labour Party members send the Labour Party a clear message that when it comes to deep-sea drilling, let us not just hear talk; let us see some walk as well. Let us see a strong position. When it comes to seabed mining, let us not mine marine protected areas, Labour. What we can see is a greater prosperity for all of our economy if we focus on that “clean, green” brand.

All in all, what we see in the Minister’s amendment is a back-door way to take away Kiwis’ rights to have a say. That is deeply un - New Zealand and deeply disappointing, and that is why the Green Party will be voting against that amendment. Kia ora.

I am going to take a short call just because I forgot to mention Supplementary Order Paper 363 on the Marine Legislation Bill, from the Green member Gareth Hughes, in my first speech.

The first thing I will say is that it would have been nice if we had got the Supplementary Order Paper earlier than 10.30 p.m. this morning.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: A.m.

Sorry, 10.30 a.m. this morning. By that stage we had gone through our procedures process of determining how we would vote. We had a number of members, including the two MPs for the Chatham Islands, Rino Tirikatene and the Hon Annette King, who wanted a little bit more time to consider it. We certainly think that there is a lot of merit in some of the concerns that have been raised. I know that it is an issue that has been raised with Maryan Street before, but we did not feel that we could vote for a Supplementary Order Paper at such short notice when we had not given affected members of Parliament in our caucus—part of the Chatham Rise is included in this protect area—the opportunity to hear both sides of the debate and to decide, No. 1, whether or not this Supplementary Order Paper was actually going to deliver what the Green member Gareth Hughes intends it to deliver, and also whether there were not going to be any unintended consequences, because this is an area where there is significant scientific debate. It is very interesting, and I am very, very sorry, but I am afraid that 5 or 6 hours’ notice of a Supplementary Order Paper really is not enough for us in the Labour Party to feel that we have given it due consideration and have looked at the science and the evidence around that matter. So it is an issue that we are going to continue to consider as a caucus, and we look forward to working with the Green Party further on that matter, but it is not an issue that we can vote for today.

I want to also address a question that the member Gareth Hughes raised about deep-sea drilling—I know that the Greens support a ban on deep-sea oil drilling—and the Labour Party position on this. My first question when someone says to me “Do you support a ban on deep-sea drilling?” is “What do you define as deep sea?”. I have sat through many, many select committee considerations on many, many technical bills and many, many environmental bills, and I do not want to sit in a select committee for 6 months arguing down to the nanometre about what constitutes deep sea and what does not, only to then have enormous reviews about how it was measured, especially when I think that it would be difficult around the science to pick where deep sea begins and shallow sea ends. What I want to see and what Labour wants to see is a robust regime throughout the entire marine environment. Depth is very much a risk factor. It is very much something that does need to be taken into consideration, and conventional wisdom says that the further out you go and the deeper you get, the more risky it is. That needs to be considered, and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, which we are amending today, is not adequate to provide that robust risk assessment analysis. It is not. It is woefully inadequate.

So what we want to see is a regime that is consistent right throughout our marine environment and that considers all the variables that are taken into account when carrying out a risk assessment. In some cases, yes, depth is going to be the overriding risk factor. In other cases it may not be. I would hate for a focus on one risk factor to be to the detriment of others. There may be other things such as seismic activity, ecological sensitivity, and a whole range of issues that occur in shallow water as well that need to be taken into account and that under the exclusive economic zone legislation are not adequately being taken into account.

Labour supports a robust regime where environmental protection is the bottom line, no matter how deep the water is—no matter how deep the water is. There may be some projects in shallow water that should not go ahead because of the risk assessment around them, but at the moment the problem we have is that we do not have confidence in that risk assessment process. We do not have confidence in the Environmental Protection Authority, which does not have an investigative capability and yet which, under an amendment being raised in Part 2 today, is now going to be the sole decider of whether or not a marine consent for exploratory drilling goes ahead. It will be the sole decider because it is not going to have the benefit of the submission process that exists in the current economic exclusion zone legislation, a submission process that the previous Minister of Energy and Resources, Phil Heatley, promised would remain in the legislation. That process has now gone, so all that information and the benefit of that information that comes from experts, from interested individuals, from NGOs, and from industry is now going to be non-notified. It is not going to happen, and that is the issue that we have.

So I certainly acknowledge the Greens’ concerns around these activities. I can say that although the exclusive economic zone legislation is woefully inadequate, until we get a Labour Government that changes it, we do not support that activity going ahead in the exclusive economic zone. It should not go ahead until we have adequate regulation in place that has environmental protection as its bottom line. We need to recognise that the line between our territorial waters and our exclusive economic zone is jurisdictional only. It has nothing to do with the environment. It has nothing to do with risk. It has nothing to do with anything other than that our territorial waters are within 12 nautical miles, and beyond that we have the right to extract resources only because we are a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is not our territorial area. For a jurisdictional line, we do not see the need to draw some kind of difference between the two regimes in legislation that operate on either side of that: the Resource Management Act for our territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone legislation for our exclusive economic zone. When that line is jurisdictional only, it makes absolutely no sense, particularly on a scientific basis, to have two such differing regimes, one of which we are further weakening today by removing the public’s right to have their say during the consent process for marine consents for exploratory drilling.

I hope that provides some clarity to the Green Party. As I said, it is with regret that we were unable, really, to have the time to give more consideration to the merits of Gareth Hughes’ Supplementary Order Paper. It is an issue we will be considering further, but, in future, the more time we are given to consider a Supplementary Order Paper around such a serious area, the better. In terms of good decision-making on behalf of the Labour Party, we simply did not feel that we were given that opportunity. Thank you.

I rise to take a call on Part 2 of the Marine Legislation Bill. Part 2 amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. As I observed in the debate on Part 1 of the bill, for the initial stages of its progress through the House, the bill was not too controversial. There was unanimous support for the first reading. In the debate at the time, however, I took a call and said that the support I voiced was with some reservations.

In Part 2 we have Supplementary Order Paper 347 from the Minister Gerry Brownlee, with amendments—a Supplementary Order Paper released in August, well after the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee reported. The amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 347 have two significant problems. The first is the provision for emergency dumping—that is, emergency dumping of waste at sea in the exclusive economic zone beyond the continental shelf. The second is the proposal to create a fourth category of activity, the category of non-notified activities.

Let us briefly peruse some of these: first, the emergency dumping of waste or the so-called dumping of waste. What is the emergency dumping of waste, and what could that waste be? What might it entail? Could it be fish? Could it be radioactive material? There is nothing as permanent as a temporary provision for a brief emergency, and it certainly opens the gate to all sorts of dumping. With these provisions, National is opening up our oceans to dumping.

I turn to the new definition of “non-notified activity”. Up to now the exclusive economic zone has had three types of activities within that legislation—that is, “permitted”, which is things that can be done; “prohibited”, which is things that cannot be done; and “discretionary”, which is things that can be done in some circumstances. But now this Government is bringing in, at the last minute, a fourth category, the “non-notified activity”. In Supplementary Order Paper 347 we learn that this is to be a discretionary activity that will not—not—be publicly notified. This has a certain stench about it.

To fully understand, we have to consider the Minister’s consultation document, which reveals that only one category of activity is to be non-notified, and that is the activity of exploratory offshore drilling. One immediately thinks of the disgusting, despicable, backyard deals that this Government is so proud of doing. Even at the moment, with regard to the Rena, the small hapū from Mōtītī Island are fighting for the complete removal of the wreck of the Rena off Astrolabe Reef. This Government has done a dirty, backyard deal that if the Mōtītī hapū fail in getting the Rena off the reef, the Government gets $10.4 million. This Government has done a backyard deal against the people of New Zealand.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What sort of a dirty deal? Like doing your family out of money? That sort of dirty deal?

There is Mr Williamson. Where was he? He was watching a test match, I think, when the Rena grounded. He was too lazy to get down there and get the oil off the Rena. But he is very happy to stand over there and make comments, throw comments, at me.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: I’m just asking what sort of a dirty deal we’re talking about here. Is it like taking money off your family or something?

Unbelievable. What this Government is doing is giving corporations a rubber stamp and saying: “Come over. Get a rubber stamp. Come to our oceans, our moana, obtain the rubber stamp off the National Government, and not be subject to any public consultation or input.” What idiot in New Zealand would drill in 1,500 to 3,000 metres of water? What is our rapid oil response unit? Three 8-metre aluminium dinghies—three 8-metre aluminium dinghies. But this Government is completely willing to put our entire coastline at risk for a few dollars.

It is interesting. We saw on TV the Prime Minister going to church, when he has openly stated that he is an atheist. It is interesting that the Pope came out just yesterday and said how Governments’ love of money is destroying families, and that is what is happening in New Zealand—this Government’s grubby love of money.

💬 David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member should stick to the bill.

The member has strayed beyond Part 2, but his time has expired.

I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Marine Legislation Bill. I want to do two things. First of all, I want to reiterate some of the points that my colleague Moana Mackey was talking about earlier in response to a call from the Green Party to find out just what Labour’s position is on deep-sea drilling. I keep wondering why those members keep asking, because we keep saying it and they keep not hearing it. So I will say it again—I will say it again. When we talk about deep-sea drilling, it is not clear, from anybody’s definition, what deep sea means. We have heard, certainly those of us on our side of the Chamber, Greenpeace, for example, say that deep-sea drilling is anything beyond about 200 metres. I would be happy to accept that as a definition because if we were to go in that direction, its rationale for a depth of 200 metres is that that is the depth at which a human diver can go in order to repair any failure of equipment or any spill or any leakage from oil drilling equipment. But it begs the question about what the criteria are and what the science is that would determine what deep-sea drilling is. Surely the whole point should be about the protection of the environment. When we have clear criteria for the protection of the marine environment around this area, then this Parliament could expect the Labour Party’s support. We do not have that, and we need to consider those issues as a totality before we start sounding off about what we think deep-sea oil drilling is.

What is very true is that the deeper one goes in offshore drilling, the greater the pressure on those oil and gas deposits. When the rock holding down those oil deposits, for example, is pierced, the oil emerges of its own volition. They do not have to pump it up to the surface, because the pressure of the water is so great that it forces the oil up. This is what happened at a depth of 2,700 metres in the Gulf of Mexico, and that was the problem. It was too deep, too risky, and the pressure was so great that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of oil escaped and was responsible for the degradation of the environment that we have seen subsequently.

We will have a look at offshore drilling and we will insist that criteria around offshore drilling are based on environmental protections, not just 200 metres. What makes it better at 199 metres than it is at 201 metres? It all depends on the environment. It depends on the ecosystems. It depends on the benthic areas that are there. It depends on whether or not there are any benthic protection areas in that domain where the drilling is taking place. That is the first point.

The second one I want to make is in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 347 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee. This Supplementary Order Paper replaces Supplementary Order Paper 340. It amends this legislation by making a number of changes to Part 2 of the bill. Some of them are simply technical amendments but, primarily, its purpose is to provide for some discretionary activities to be prescribed as non-notified activities for which an application for a marine consent is not publicly notifiable. Again, we are seeing this Government do what it has done in other pieces of legislation, coincidentally or not, that relate to oil and gas exploration. Certainly, in respect of oil and gas exploration the Government is much more lenient on oil and gas companies than on anybody else.

To deprive the public of their right to have a say on whether or not exploratory drilling should happen off their shores is an affront to democracy. It is as simple as that. It is clear from this Government’s previous behaviour that that is how it intends to proceed. When that tricky little business of democratic participation gets in the way, it will ride roughshod over it, and it will find ways of writing out of the legislation any requirements for public consultation. That is what this amendment does. It is a travesty. There are people—including the Gisborne District Council committee, which because of its own experience with the possibility of offshore drilling, exploratory or otherwise, is looking to oppose this particular provision—who want to have a say. It does not matter whether offshore drilling is something that is likely or unlikely to happen for those people; what they want is the ability to have their say. So how can any potentially adverse impacts on the environment be assessed if it is going to be up to only the Environmental Protection Authority to determine and to give permission for things, when it does not have its own investigative capacity?

One other thing that I just want to draw attention to in Supplementary Order Paper 347 is this Minister’s particular penchant for regulations that are so broad ranging as to be likely to be used to undermine the original purpose of the legislation. It says here in new section 29AB(2), inserted in clause 100 by Supplementary Order Paper 347: “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations that prescribe requirements, methods, or technical standards for emergency dumping of waste or other matter.” I use this one as an example because it is talking about the emergency dumping of waste, which is a particular consideration, but it will be the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Minister, who makes the requirements and who makes the regulations that prescribe the requirements, methods, or technical standards. How is it the Minister’s responsibility to determine those regulations without any scrutiny from this Parliament? That is not appropriate.

We know this Minister because of his track record with road-user charges and all sorts of other things. We know his track record and his protégé Simon Bridges’ track record in bringing in Supplementary Order Papers after select committee reports have been returned to the House, and we know that they have no regard for anything other than the agenda to which they are committed—that is, to drill and mine everything they can in order to get some economic improvement—because they lack imagination to do anything differently. That is at the heart of this. Even democracy gets in the way of any economic improvement that might be an alternative to drilling and mining. It is this lack of imagination and lack of a plan to modernise our economy that is going to be the death of this Government.

I am not sure that that member, Maryan Street, is well placed to be talking about the death of the Government, given the bloodshed that has been occurring in the Labour caucus in recent times, but there we go. That is certainly a party that is in the practice of throwing many stones within the glasshouse.

I want to come to Supplementary Order Paper 347 and speak to that just briefly. I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when this Marine Legislation Bill was passing through the select committee, but I have been listening intently to some of the comments made in the debate on Part 1, which I would also like to contribute to just very briefly.

It is fair to say that there is little contention about Part 1 or the need for this legislation. The Labour Party did advance with “Why is it taking so long? Why is it taking so long?”. There was a lot of hand-wringing and clenching of hands and fingers over that. The question I would have—

💬 Hon Maryan Street: We’re on Part 2 now, Mike.

I know that we are on Part 2, but this is my first contribution, Maryan Street, so I would like to actually offer something a little more fulsome. It has been raised in Part 2, anyway, as to why we have not done anything. The member Ruth Dyson raised that exact point. Although not uncommon with Labour Party members, the ironic thing here is that they sat around for 3 years when they could have done something about this, but they did not. They have been in the practice of pushing the hard things to one side and just dealing with the populist issues to help them get re-elected. Then when they go into Opposition—I give them credit; Labour is actually an effective Opposition party when its members are not cannibalising one another—they turn round and say: “Why isn’t that Government doing what we didn’t?”. The difference between this party and the Labour Party is that we get on and actually do what needs to be done. So the posturing over why this has taken so long needs to be put to bed right there, because Labour had its chance and it did not take it. Then it comes into the Chamber and spends the last 3 years filibustering—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I beg your pardon?

The member heard me.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: We’ve spent 3 years filibustering this bill, have we?

I could try to spell it out but I would probably struggle with that one, I think. I am not sure whether that word starts with an “f” or a “ph”. I am not sure, but never mind. I could come to the member’s comments about alcohol limits but, of course, we are on Part 2. I will pick that up on another occasion—what I would think about what pilots are doing, not just what people are doing in ships, because they also have some concerns around alcohol.

Supplementary Order Paper 347 deals with introducing a new definition of a non-notified discretionary activity. The Environmental Protection Authority will have a regulatory opportunity to keep the sort of oversight that is required, essentially where exploration is occurring or where a narrower field of activities are going on. There is a distinctly different implication to exploratory activities or short-term or controlled activities from full-blown production. I think that is where members may be getting a little confused—when we look to manage and mitigate risk, and get the balance right, in terms of providing a pragmatic and effective legislative framework in which we can encourage activities with a balance towards ensuring environmental needs are taken care of. This is what this Supplementary Order Paper is actually dealing with. The members on the other side would have us think that this is Armageddon, that this is a disgrace to democracy, and what have you. Well, what I would suggest is that it is not a case that every single initiative, every single policy of Government, is subject to the referendum sort of approach that we see from the Labour and Green members. It just so happens that they cherry-pick particular issues that they believe that is important for.

It is quite clear that when we look at the restrictions that are put on, and what this Supplementary Order Paper actually relates to, they are quite controlled and risk-managed practices. Yes, this Government makes no apology whatsoever for the fact that we want to look and explore the opportunities that this country has in terms of its mineral resources. We would be doing New Zealanders a great disservice were we not to do that. It is a matter of doing it in a fashion that ultimately gets the balance between the environmental needs and the consequences of things going wrong, and having effective vehicles for us to make something of the opportunities that this country has to offer in terms of mineral exploration. So I have no problem with Supplementary Order Paper 347, and I would challenge the Opposition to actually deal with that issue.

Kia ora and ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I cannot just sit here and listen to this faux debate we hear from this side of Parliament, as if 200 metres is the critical issue facing the question of deep-sea oil drilling in Aotearoa New Zealand. The depth of 200 metres, which is what groups and the Greens define as deep-sea drilling, is not the critical issue; the critical issue is protecting our beaches, protecting our moana, and protecting our economy from the threat of deep-sea drilling. But it is academic because what we know is that the permits this Government has offered, including the recent 343,000 square kilometres that it has opened up, are considered ultra-deep in the oil academic literature. We can have a debate as to whether 200 metres is deep or shallow; the fact is that it is deep. Only advanced robotics and submersibles can maintain the rig or fix a spill if it happens at that depth. But the fact is that it is academic because what we are talking about in New Zealand is a different kettle of fish from what we have seen in Taranaki and what is considered in the literature as ultra-deep. It is extremely risky, extremely complex, and operating at the frontiers of technology, geography, and geology. It is something that we should not be putting at risk—our marine environment.

What we see with Supplementary Order Paper 347, which introduces new clause 102A, is a back-door, no-say amendment that takes away Kiwis’ rights to have a say on discretionary activities. When you take the precedent, which is the Resource Management Act, then the public gets a say on discretionary activities if they have an impact greater than minor. The Government is asking Kiwis what colour they think the Department of Conservation huts should be painted. There are various consultations on various issues. But when it comes to consenting the most risky activity affecting our marine environment, the Government, through this back-door, no-say amendment, is taking away New Zealanders’ right to have a say.

This is the critical issue: should New Zealanders have a say on the greatest environmental threat facing New Zealand? The Green Party is clear. We have a strong position. Deep-sea drilling should be prohibited. It is a different kettle of fish from what we have done in Taranaki, where the deepest well is 125 metres. What we are talking about in New Zealand—say, at 1.5 kilometres or deeper—is well casing that has to be specially strengthened or it will burst under its own pressure. We are talking, at 1.5 kilometres down, about a water temperature of 0.4 degrees or close to freezing, yet the oil is coming out close to boiling. What we are talking about is operating at the extremes of technology and in hostile environments kilometres down.

There are no guarantees with oil drilling. The Government is clear on that point. The industry is clear on that point. Obama’s presidential commission into Deepwater Horizon said that it is akin to nuclear power. Not every well is going to have an accident and blow up, but when an accident occurs, the consequences can be catastrophic. What we saw with the Rena is that New Zealand does not have a response capability to deal with such a spill. Maritime New Zealand has adopted only 5,500 tonnes as its response capability that it is planning for. The Deepwater Horizon was 600,000 tonnes, yet Maritime New Zealand is planning for only 5,500 tonnes, and it clearly struggled with only 300 tonnes from the Rena. In the Gulf, they had more than 1,000 vessels working on that spill. In New Zealand, Maritime New Zealand has three skimmers, which are more akin to dinghies. In the Gulf, they had more than 46,000 people working on the spill. In New Zealand, Maritime New Zealand has around 180 trained responders. In the Gulf, it cost $40 billion. In New Zealand, we cannot afford to deal with a spill. That is why New Zealanders need a say. That is why it is egregious that we are seeing this back-door amendment taking away New Zealanders’ right to have a say.

When it comes to the permitting process, New Zealanders already do not have a say. It is because of Green Party pressure that with the granting of permits our councils now get a say. I urge all the councils across New Zealand to have a say. The fact is that an oil spill is not going to recognise the 12 nautical mile jurisdictional limit. An oil spill would affect all of our councils and affect all of our public. It is good that last year the Government extended the consultation out to councils. Now it needs to extend it out to the public.

This bill is a step backwards. We need to stop having a debate around whether Labour thinks 200 metres is the right limit or not. Let us have a debate around ultra-deep drilling, which is happening to New Zealand this summer with Anadarko’s ship the Noble Bob Douglas coming to New Zealand—this summer—to drill our first deep-sea exploratory wells off our coasts. This is the critical issue, and this is why I am proud to be a Green member, because we are standing up for the clean economy, we are standing up for the innovative economy, and we are standing up for real jobs for New Zealanders, not for a sector that is going to see environmental risks and profits flow offshore, with the lowest job-producing potential of any sector in the Taranaki economy. This is our future.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 347 in his name to Part 2 be agreed to:

add to clause 102A the following subclause:

In the heading to section 33, after “regulations”, insert “under section 27”;

insert the following new clause:

102B Section 34 amended (Information principles)

In section 34(1), replace “section 27” with “sections 27, 29A, and 29AB.”; and

insert in clause 107D(2), after new section 99(5)(c), the following paragraph:

(ca) section 149RA(1) and (2) (which allows the board to make minor corrections to board decisions and resource consents):.