Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill

I rise to make some concluding remarks in the second reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill, and I ask the House whether I can perhaps refer to it as just the bill from now on. The bill makes a small technical amendment to the Act to ensure a sensible transition of existing petroleum operators into the new regime. We have four petroleum production operators in the exclusive economic zone, all off the coast of Taranaki—that fantastic area, which is, of course, incredibly well served by Barbara Kuriger—and all crucial for New Zealand’s oil and gas supply. All of them have been operating well but need to be brought seamlessly into the regime without compromising their supply. The current transitional provisions in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act require existing operators to undertake the marine consenting process before their pre-existing permits expire. This bill allows simply for operators to continue operating while their new marine consent applications are being considered by the Environmental Protection Authority.

The bill also provides certainty of operation throughout any subsequent objections and appeals, and that is, of course, potentially where we are with Shell Todd Oil Services at the moment. I think what is really important, though, is to note that the bill does not change the requirement to apply for a marine consent. Operators are still required to provide an impact assessment on the nature of their activities and are still required to identify measures to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects.

The select committee spent quite a lot of its time reflecting on the transitional provisions, particularly section 162 of the current Act. If I can quote from that Act, it allows existing petroleum mining activities involving structures or pipelines that are permitted under the Crown Minerals Act regime to continue without a marine consent for the duration of the operator’s mining permits or privileges as they were on the day before that Act came into force. But, critically, it does not allow existing operators to continue their activities while a marine consent application is being considered and any appeal is being determined. So, as you would expect, that was a challenge for us, and we needed to resolve that. We cannot have situations where, essentially, existing operators need to have been granted a marine consent before their mining permit or privilege expires and they find themselves potentially continuing to operate in breach.

We spent quite a lot of time, as a select committee, reflecting on whether the current operators could, essentially, game the framework in any way by delaying the time of their application for a new permit and consent until the very last moment and then tying up the review process in years of legal wrangling. I guess there was a legal perspective that was brought to the debate by both members of the committee and those who were providing submissions, but also I think that at times the debate lacked commercial rigour. From my perspective—just reflecting on some of my experience in recent years, particularly with Fonterra—the idea that you would deliberately wait until the very last minute to put in an application when you have such a significant part of your business at stake, which is being enabled by a particular consent or permit, is very unlikely. Certainly, from my experience, it just simply does not happen, because the business continuity risks are significant, and if you are in the commercial world, your senior management and, indeed, your governors hold your feet to the fire to ensure that you are managing your regulatory compliance—particularly any consents and the rollover of those—in a way that absolutely assures business continuity. So some of the debate in the select committee around the fact that somehow our oil and petrol - producing companies would be gaming this by trying to wait until the very, very last minute simply did not wash with me.

We did amend clause 4 of the proposed bill, which amends section 162 of the principal Act, to require existing operators to apply for a marine consent 9 months prior to the expiry of their permit and for that application to be acknowledged as complete by the Environmental Protection Authority. There was quite a lot of debate as to whether this should be 6 months, 9 months, or 12 months. I think we have landed in the right spot. Actually, I think the credit for that should go to our chairman, Mr Scott Simpson, who has shown, yet again, that he has a very good way of managing a process, reflecting on the various perspectives in the room in order to get the right outcome in terms of the legislative outcome. I think that we have got an outcome here that will work quite well. We have amended clause 4 further by putting in new section 162(5) to clarify that existing mining activities that are past the expiry date of a mining permit or privilege can continue until the application is decided by the Environmental Protection Agency and appeals are determined, and I think that is very useful.

Perhaps the only closing comment is that we had a number of submitters. Most of them were perhaps light in terms of understanding the details of this. The Petroleum Exploration and Production Association, of course, was not very supportive of change, but I think one message it could take away from our select committee deliberations is that it does have a role, in my view, in working with the oil companies to ensure that they are very aware of their obligations in terms of timing and sequencing of their particular consent renewals. There was just a touch of a hands-off approach from the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association, which I think did not serve it particularly well. I look forward to this bill progressing through the House.

I rise to take a call on this Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Nick Smith, and thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for allowing me to stand. Yes, this is a very narrowly focused bill, and it does mean that it will allow our oil and gas operators to be able to continue to operate their businesses while their consents are being processed through the decision-making committee appointed by the Environmental Protection Authority. I am pleased to note that on 4 June this year, just not long ago, the decision-making committee granted Shell Todd Oil Services a 35-year consent based on some conditions. Those conditions were around just a couple of the Māui gas field platforms out on the Taranaki Basin. I am really pleased that Shell Todd Oil Services was able to get its consent approved for 35 years, because it is, along with the other three oil companies, a major economic deliverer for this country—20 percent of GDP in this economy comes from the oil and gas industry.

We cannot, as a Government and as people of New Zealand, let our marine consent process be upset through this whole process. I am really pleased that we were able to do something about this. My colleague Todd Muller, the previous speaker, talked about the amendments to sections 162(4) and 162(5) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act in clause 4 of this bill. Under the old section 162(4), the organisation applying for the marine consent was not allowed to operate past the expiry date. That is really key, because we cannot have that happen. It would actually affect our economy, big time. So then the Local Government and Environment Committee looked at amending new section 162(5), and that allowed the organisations to continue to run their operations past their expiry dates until the Environmental Protection Authority confirmed their marine consents.

I just want to talk a little bit about the fact that this Government is a Government that tackles the hard things that have gone on in our country, like environmental protection. We were the Government that brought in the Environmental Protection Authority. We were the Government that brought in the exclusive economic zone. We are a Government that sets up 44 marine reserves—44 marine reserves, because—

💬 Matt Doocey: We care.

That is right. Yes, we do care. We care a lot about this country, and I am really ashamed that we had a Clark Government for 9 long years—shaky, scary years—when there was no environmental protection, even though it drilled 34 wells that nobody in this country knew about.

💬 Hon Member: Rubbish!

When I hear people on the other side say “Rubbish!”, that is most probably because they too did not know that was happening within their own Government.

So when we start to look at things like that, this is a Government that tackles all the hard things. We have tackled environmental protection—44 marine reserves. We have got these oil and gas companies their marine consents, and we have worked through all of those. We are very, very pleased that we were able to do that transitional tinkering within there to make sure that we protect those four major companies. When I travel up to Taranaki and I look around at Taranaki, I look at the effects that these four major players have had on that region. I do not see too many people from Taranaki walking around dragging their lips and thinking: “Our economy really sucks up here.”, because it does not. It does not, and it is all attributed to our oil and gas companies up there in Taranaki.

I also look at some of the things that are happening with iwi up there to do with that area, because the iwi have actually bought into that. They are actually part and parcel of consultation under the Environmental Protection Authority.

💬 Stuart Nash: What’s this got to do with the bill?

It has got everything to do with it. It has got absolutely everything to do with this particular clause.

💬 Stuart Nash: It’s a very narrow piece of legislation.

It is a very narrow bill, Mr Nash. Of course it is very narrow, but it has wide implications for everybody.

💬 Scott Simpson: You’ve hit a nerve, Jo.

I know I have hit a nerve. It is just amazing. But when you start to look at it, 20 percent of our GDP comes from our oil and gas businesses. That is about $2 billion added to our GDP, and we take about $800,000 worth of taxes and royalties, and where do we put that? We put that within the health industry, to support the health industry, to support education, and to support roading and our infrastructure. That is where we put that funding. What kind of business could we replace that with? We cannot. We have minerals, we have various resources in this country, and we have to make sure that we are able to utilise those areas with all the protections in place, and that we are also doing this in an important, environmentally friendly way so that the economy benefits and everybody benefits.

When I look at the marine reserves, those marine reserves actually protect them from oil and gas and petroleum drilling. Those are the rules around that, and that is why I am surprised that I have people from the Opposition benches over in the Greens who do not like this. They will not support it, and I find that it is not very good when we have got Opposition benches not supporting the slight tinkering that will enable our economy to carry on and grow in the way that it is growing.

I want to extend my thanks to Scott Simpson. Scott is our chair of our Local Government and Environment Committee. I sat with Scott on the previous committee that he chaired, and he runs a very fair and open process. He allows everybody to have input with respect, and that is, I believe, what makes him a very good chair of any select committee, actually. Even when we gained those five submissions on this bill—they were from groups and individuals. Two of those five submitters came along and spoke to our committee, with the deepest respect.

I believe that this has been a very open process from the start of it, at the start of 2015, through when the submissions closed on 9 April 2015, to here at the second reading. I look forward to going into the Committee of the whole House process and then moving into the third reading of this bill. I look forward to it. I am proud of the work that this Government continues to do for this country, because this is a Government that cares for the people and we care for our economy. For any other party that does not think like that, then shame—shame—shame on you. I wholeheartedly support and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support this bill, which I guess just absolutely refutes the last speaker, Joanne Hayes, who—woefully ignorant—railed on about Opposition parties opposing it. Clearly, the member has not been listening and maybe she should be paying more attention. The Green Party stands for a greener, cleaner future, so in the first reading we did oppose the bill because we had serious concerns that it was not on for this Parliament, using the most awesome power of this House, which is to make legislation, to pass laws to benefit a single oil company. The Government had not made the case.

The fact is that Shell Todd Oil Services had botched the job of applying for a marine consent for its wells. What the records, in fact, uncovered is this particular company ran to Cabinet before it had even put in its application, when it realised that it had its time lines all wrong and that it would not get its marine consent application in on time if there were any appeals. It is absolutely staggering that a company that appeared in front of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the exclusive economic zone legislation—a company that had been involved, along with the wider oil industry, in the consideration around the exclusive economic zone legislation, legislation that had to be fixed two more times because of Government botches in terms of the original drafting, in terms of that rushed job—did not work out how soon it had to get a marine consent application in. Instead of actually putting in the application, it ran to Cabinet.

Of course, Cabinet said: “Sure, we’ll pass a law that benefits you in particular, because you’re an oil company and we’ll do anything for oil companies, including tens of millions of dollars of subsidies, in terms of the fourth-lowest tax plus royalty rate in the world, and in terms of calling out the navy when iwi fishermen get in your way.”—a Government that will do anything to drill it, mine it, frack it across New Zealand. At the time, this sure did look like one law for oil. It looked like the Government trying to fix a loophole for a specific company.

But I am also proud to say that the Green Party was able to improve the legislation with two significant amendments in the select committee. So we would like to acknowledge the submitters. We would like to acknowledge the committee, the officials, and the chair, Mr Simpson, and we would like to acknowledge the two changes. This legislation, this amendment bill that we are debating, essentially gives those companies that apply for a marine consent in the exclusive economic zone, for example, for oil drilling or gas mining in terms of seabed mining—if they put in an application before their existing permit expires, this amendment allows them to continue the operation until they successfully get a permit.

Two concerns here were that, under the original drafting of the legislation, essentially any company could wait until the last day of its existing marine permit before bothering to put in a new application because it knew it would be covered under the awesome power of this House. It could continue operating for as long as the process and the appeals would take. Plainly, that is ridiculous. It incentivises bad behaviour, such as putting in an application incredibly late. A company could do it hours before its existing permit expired and still be kosher under this legislation. So we were happy to amend new section 162(5) in clause 4 to introduce a 9-month window. This means that companies have to apply 9 months before their existing permit expires if they are going to benefit from the amendments contained in this legislation. That is consistent with other legislation such as the Resource Management Act. It is a way that we can incentivise these companies to make sure they get their applications in on time. We cannot have these “The dog ate my homework.” arguments that we have heard from the likes of Shell Todd Oil Services.

The second amendment to improve the legislation argued by the Green members was that we needed a definition of “marine consent”. Under the original legislation the wording was fuzzy. It could have been argued that simply lodging an application was sufficient, or did the application have to be signed off as complete? In terms of some of the applications the Environmental Protection Authority has received—for example, the Trans-Tasman Resources case—three whole pages of additional information was requested by the authority in that application because it was not completed. So we have tightened up the legislation in terms of it having to be a complete consent application. So we have explained our original concerns. We have explained how the bill has been improved by the Green Party and that is why we will be supporting it.

Ultimately this is a very small matter compared with the Government’s fossil fuel agenda, which is simply massive in terms of all the taxpayer subsidies, in terms of all the moral and legislative support, and in terms of all the things the Government is doing. It is a shame because we know the future is in terms of the clean-energy economy. We know we have tremendous opportunities. We know from US data that there are four times more jobs in clean energy than there are in fossil fuels. We have international bodies such as the OECD and the International Energy Agency calling for an end to the more than $500 billion in global subsidies for fossil fuels.

So perhaps the major opportunity cost of this legislation in terms of the submitters’ time, the officials’ time, this House’s time, and the select committee’s time is that we could have used this time to build, to foster, and to empower a clean-energy economy, which is where the international capital markets are going, which is where the scientists are urging us to go to if we want to avoid the worst of catastrophic climate change, and which is where real prosperity is going to come from. Instead of passing one law for oil, in fact, what this Parliament should be debating is the separation of oil and State. What we need to see is a fair go given for clean energy. Although we are opposed to the continuing fossil fuel agenda, we can support this legislation, which has been improved, and I would like to thank the members and the officials involved.

On the last note, I would like to voice one last note of disappointment that the very company involved in this legislation, the very company that singlehandedly benefits from this legislation–Shell Todd Oil Services—did not bother to front up to the select committee. There were wide questions on the urgency and the need for this legislation. We saw Nick Smith get it incredibly wrong; I guess there is a bit of a track record there. He exaggerated on the day this legislation was announced, saying that 40 percent of the country’s gas supply was at risk, when in fact it was around 20 percent—more than 50 percent wrong. We have not seen from either the Government or Shell Todd Oil Services any information regarding what would happen if this legislation was not passed. We now know that Shell Todd Oil Services successfully got its consent. Gas supply was never at risk. Was the question simply that this company would be charged extra for its long-term gas supply contracts if it could not fulfil them, or was there a serious gas supply problem that would have affected New Zealand households, New Zealand stoves, and New Zealand industrial facilities?

These questions were never answered, and it was disappointing that the lobby group for the oil industry, the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand, came along, but it could not answer a single detailed question when it came to this company benefiting. It is an awesome power of this House when we pass laws that benefit a single company, particularly when it is a company dealing in the oil industry, which we know has such a serious impact on our global climate and on the climate security for us, for our kids, and for our future generations. It was disappointing that it could not come.

So let us move forward from this. Let us embrace the green-energy economy. Let us look at getting an effective carbon signal through a carbon tax cut. Let us get a green investment bank in place. Let us make it about a fair go for clean energy, because when you are an outside observer, you see all the steps that this Government is doing for fossil fuels including this, yet on the other hand you see New Zealand entirely slipping off the renewable energy global index. Saudi Arabia, of all countries, has taken our place. We have slipped off it entirely. There is a host of smart, innovative, productive steps that this Parliament could be taking and this Government could be showing with leadership, and that is what the Green Party is going to continue to champion. Thank you for the opportunity. Kia ora.

This is a very short bill, and as is so often the pattern when you get a bill of this size going through the House and everybody is in agreement that the bill should proceed, the challenge is trying to find something that has not been said already.

I sat in my office and watched a bit of the House on the telly, and I am going to say again—and some people might start to think this is a bit monotonous—that the difference in the way in which the Local Government and Environment Committee operates and the way in which I am witnessing some of the other select committees operate, with their consequential reports back to the House, is really quite astonishing. It really is quite astonishing. I have to say watch out to some of the front-bench members of the National Party, because there are some backbench members of your caucus chairing and deputy chairing select committees who have got all the talent and all the skills to take the place of people like Nick Smith, who quite clearly—looking at this legislation and how it got to be here—cannot do his damn job properly. He continues to fall over. I mean, why are here? Why have we spent this fortune?

In terms of the way in which this legislation has been managed through the select committee, I take my hat off to the National Party team, because at one stage the bill was set to provide a 6-month transition period. Through some sensible discussion and some cooperative dialogue the select committee unanimously agreed that 9 months was more sensible and a nice compromise. Some wanted 12 months. It started out as 6 months. So the bill has arrived here at the report back with a 9-month clause, which we will deal with in the Committee stage. The tone, the flavour, the way in which the Local Government and Environment Committee operates is, I think, a credit to the House. I think it is a credit to the members who sit on it. It is a credit to the chair and the deputy chair, and to the Opposition parties that sit at the table as well.

Speaking of the bill, New Zealand First will support it. I have to say, how bad do you have to be, when you are a corporation as big as Shell Todd Oil Services, to get this wrong? The only reason this legislation is here, quite frankly, is that, as far as I can see, Shell Todd Oil Services got it wrong. It mucked up. It went running and screaming to the Government. It told the Government it needed to jump. The Government said: “How high?”, and it said: “High enough to change the legislation.” So here we are, and many, many months later we have got the bill going through the House and we are carefully scraping the egg off Shell Todd Oil Services’ face.

But I have to contrast this with what I see is happening up in Auckland and how Ngāti Whātua have been treated in terms of the first right of refusal. It seems that if you are big enough, bold enough, and worth billions of dollars the Government will spin on a sixpence, but if you have negotiated for 12 years on a Treaty settlement and you have a right of first refusal, suddenly it does not exist.

I look at this legislation and I think how easy it is to actually put into place something sensible that is fair to all parties. The Government could have chosen to do nothing here. How embarrassing would that have been? How detrimental would it have been to the company’s operations and how detrimental would it have been to the jobs and the lives of those people employed? The sensible solution was to change the legislation.

Quite clearly the legislation, if I may be quite boring and read parts of it: “seeks to amend section 162 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.” The clause that has been adjusted is very simple. It allows operators to continue operating following the expiry of a permit or privilege until operators have lodged a marine consent. It actually gives them a time. It specifies a time by which they must lodge their consents and get them cleared through. It is not an open cheque book.

The commentary on the bill states: “The bill would allow operators to continue mining while their consent application was in progress and any appeals were determined. The purpose of the bill is to provide greater certainty to petroleum mining companies operating in the Exclusive Economic Zone, and to help their transition to the 2012 Act’s regulations.” That is all sensible stuff, so there is not really a lot more I can say. New Zealand First agrees with the clauses dealing with mining with a marine consent. We are quite easy, I guess, with the fact that this is a sensible change.

My colleague Fletcher Tabuteau spoke in the first reading. I think he had a few terse words for the Minister, and he did make it clear to the Government that we felt then that this was a bit of a stuff-up. Quite clearly, it has been, and from where I sit now, having sat on the select committee, I can see that the people who did get it wrong were in Shell Todd Oil Services. Hopefully, that is a lesson to be learnt by them. Hopefully, anyone else out there—and I did make this point at the select committee—now understands the need to plan ahead. I would have thought that a company that big would do those things naturally, but clearly not.

I did draw in the select committee phase a parallel with councils. I guess Shell Todd Oil Services could buy and sell the tiny little old Carterton District Council a hundred times over. We have issues around resource consents and compliance, and we have to ensure that when our consents are about to expire, we get the applications in on time and that those consents, at best, do not expire and, at worst, are in progress at the time they do, and that we get the extensions to them when such occasions arise.

Generally speaking, local government throughout New Zealand deals with this sort of matter all the time, and if it is not on top of its game for its water takes and its water discharges, then things get messy. I just do not for the life of me understand how a multibillion-dollar organisation like this can get things so badly wrong and require us to be sitting in the House passing legislation.

I will conclude by saying congratulations to the team. The Local Government and Environment Committee is a great team to work with. I am enjoying the work there.

This is a small bill. I do not think there is much more to be said, but I guess we will have to say it all again during the Committee stage. Kia ora.

The next call is a split call. I call Eugenie Sage—5 minutes.

I am pleased to take a short call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. The Green Party opposed this bill at its first reading because it appeared to be another example of the Government amending the law to provide preferential treatment to industry to benefit corporate interests, and in this particular case to benefit Shell Todd Oil Services so it could continue to operate the Māui gasfield. If the company did not have a new marine consent by 27 June, then it would have be in breach of the principal exclusive economic zone Act, and it would have to stop operating.

With the benefit of submissions and advice from officials at the select committee, and with the changes that Opposition members encouraged the Government members to support, we will now be supporting this bill. The advice was quite helpful. It turned out that Shell Todd Oil Services had actually notified the Environmental Protection Authority in June last year of its intention to lodge a marine consent application. It provided a draft impact assessment in September and actually lodged the application in November.

The Green Party wants a robust process for the Environmental Protection Authority to consider these applications so their impacts can be thoroughly investigated, assessed, and considered. The changes that the select committee is making to the bill provide for that. The bill will not allow any existing operator to continue to operate unless it applies at least 9 months before its existing permit or privilege under the Crown Minerals Act expires and it files a complete application for a marine consent with the Environmental Protection Authority. This change ensures that in the 9-month period the full decision process can be gone through by the authority. It does not allow enough time for appeals to be considered, but it is a significant improvement on the bill as introduced. We thank submitters for drawing their concerns to the committee’s attention, and we thank officials for their work.

Although the Environmental Protection Authority has recently granted consent to Shell Todd Oil Services, the next of the existing operators that would be likely to use this provision in the Act is Tūī. Its existing permit and privileges expire in November 2025. We hope it will get its head around the processes well before then.

One of the things that was really disappointing was that Shell Todd Oil Services did not make a submission. It did not come to the select committee, and we were not able to question it about the extent to which the Māui gas supply would be disrupted if the bill did not go through. We certainly do not want Kiwis going without gas, but now that Shell Todd Oil Services is a swing producer for that field, it is no longer the dominant producer of gas. So, potentially, a temporary stop in production could be met by supply from other operators. But we did not get the chance to ask it that.

One of our major concerns in the whole marine space is that the same Minister who is responsible for this bill has been talking repeatedly about introducing new marine reserves legislation, but that is yet to come to this House. This bill can be introduced and put through the parliamentary process fairly quickly, yet we have been waiting over a decade for new marine reserves legislation. The Māui A and B platforms are 33 and 38 kilometres offshore respectively. We do not have any deep-sea marine reserves. We have got a Government that is encouraging more exploitation of oil and gas, even though there is strong scientific evidence that we cannot burn up to 50 percent of our existing reserves without frying the climate. We need to have more marine protection rather than an encouragement of more oil extraction. This Government needs to bring a marine reserves bill to the House so we can have some deep-sea marine protection and not just accommodate the oil and gas industry. Thank you.

Su’a William Sio—5 minutes.

The Government often thinks that by supporting the oil industry—and it tends to focus one-sidedly on the economics—all will be well. But we know that despite the best efforts, and despite the money that the industry says it has and is prepared to mitigate disasters with, disasters do happen. When they happen it is the general population that suffers, it is our environment that suffers, and it is also nature that suffers. I just make that point because often I am hearing speeches from the other side from members who forget about the other side of the argument and then try to maintain a balance. This legislation, and the improvements made by the Local Government and Environment Committee, is about protecting the environment and maintaining the balance.

I want to caution the Government because with regard to the original legislation in 2012 we said that the Government was rushing through it, but of course, it did not care. It did not care one iota. It rushed it through. What we got was mistakes made in weak legislation, and now we are having to spend this time improving the legislation that the Government introduced in 2012.

I want to read a couple of statements made by the submitters. There were not a lot of submitters, but for the submitters who took the time I think it is worthy that we acknowledge their submissions. It is also worthy that they brought a different angle to this particular debate. Tanea Tangaroa made this submission: “We are not happy with the way this government is treating our whanau hapu and the lack of integrity and respect towards our tikanga and kawa. We are not happy with the current oil and gas explorations that are already operating in the eez and the response to the oil spills …”. The point he made in the entirety of that submission is concern about protecting the environment, and often the industry does not seem to care.

I want to read out another extract, from Frack Free Kapiti and Beyond. This was its submission: “While the intention of this amendment is to not interrupt the flow of gas to New Zealanders, the amendment seems to offer existing operators an open ended timeframe in which to operate completely outside of New Zealand’s EEZ Act …”, and it then listed three recommendations that it advised the select committee to undertake. Linda Hill of the Kāpiti Coast said: “I strongly object to this legislation amendment, because it grants special privileges to the petroleum industry which undermine the parliamentary purpose and effective operation of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 … All companies have known since September 2012 what EEZ Act says …”.

The submitters have a point. I think, to be fair, the members of the select committee took on board those submissions. We were not necessarily able to address the concerns that they had, but one concern that was tabled before the select committee, and which the select committee took on board, was the fact that we have to put some limitations on the companies in terms of the time frame that they would have for the transition.

I am happy to say—and my colleague from New Zealand First Ron Mark is absolutely correct, as well as the members from the Green Party—that it was actually the Opposition members who made the suggestion to the members of the Government that by adopting these recommendations they would actually improve the legislation. I am pleased to say that the Government members on the select committee were able to hear those voices of common sense and accept the recommendations. I cannot say that for the Minister who introduced the original legislation and who is responsible for it, because I think it shows her recklessness in rushing through legislation and her recklessness in failing to accept the fact that our select committee process is designed to enable significant input from individuals and our community and from people who know what they are talking about, and the fact that by so accepting that advice, it enables whichever Government is in to improve on the piece of legislation that it has.

So I will just caution the Government. I think that through its arrogance and its forgetting that it is there because of the goodwill of New Zealanders—do not take that for granted. I would say to the Government that it was only through—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

It is a pleasure to rise in support of this very important bill, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. As I rise to speak to this bill and reflect on what I have heard through the second reading, I have heard it all. Mr Cunliffe said in the second reading that this bill was a pooper scooper. That just reflects just how irresponsible this Opposition is, because this bill reflects things that are important to New Zealanders—the environment and the economy.

This National Government cares—it cares about the environment and it cares about the economy. That is why everyday New Zealanders trust us. They trust us to care about protecting the environment and they trust us to care about supporting the growth of our economy. I think they demonstrated very clearly in September last year whom they trust. They trust this National Government.

In this speech I want to touch on a few key things that happened through the process that takes us up to this second reading. I must say, as a new MP following this bill through, that it has been a very informative and learning process seeing this bill go through its first reading and go back to the Local Government and Environment Committee, hearing the submissions, the learning from that, and the discussions across the table and the very collegial decision-making that has formed a very smart piece of legislation.

I want to touch on the flexibility of section 162 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 and how that is a key to ensuring that there is investment certainty and business continuity in this sector. I also want to touch on how the consequences will play out in New Zealand if we do not get this bill right. I also want to talk about the specified time frames for applying for a marine consent and how very important that is to this whole bill.

If we look at the consequences of not getting this bill correct, we know, through the regulatory impact statement, that if Shell Todd Oil Services ceased to explore and extract gas that would have a significant impact on New Zealand’s economy. We know that Shell Todd Oil Services operates at the Māui gas field, which is 26 percent of New Zealand’s gas supply. We also know that it is a big employer in the Taranaki region. I have my colleague to my right, the very able MP for Taranaki - King Country, Barbara Kuriger, who, her constituents can rest assured, is already making a significant mark in Parliament and in her electorate. We know that Shell Todd Oil Services is a big employer of 300 people in the region, so the gas sector is very important to New Zealand’s well-being, the well-being of our environment, and the well-being of our economy.

It is very much the Pareto ratio. We know that the Pareto ratio is 80:20, and 80 percent of the gas consumed from Māui feeds 20 percent of sites, which include petrochemical, electricity generation, and large industrial users that support our export economy. Every New Zealander knows that it is the export economy that drives forward the well-being, the wealth, and the success of this country, and that it is something that we need to protect.

The regulatory impact statement also clearly outlined how in 2011 when there was an outage in Māui for 5 days, the knock-on effect of that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted and I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Before the dinner break I was talking about the consequences of this very important legislation and the consequences if we did not have this important bill. I was quoting the regulatory impact statement, which acknowledges that in 2011 there was a 5-day outage in Māui and that the cost to gas consumers was over $200 million a day. At $40 million a day it is important and imperative that this legislation and these regimes are not only protecting the environment but our economy as well.

A key issue of this bill in the select committee process was very much about the specified time frames and the time frames of applying for a marine consent. For a new MP, to watch this process play out was very informative. There was a lot of learning, and it was great to be part of that and to see how decisions are made based on the evidence put forward. The select committee sought advice to understand the different time frames that it could look at for this bill and very much it was about looking at what time frame an operator would need to submit their application for a marine consent.

The first option—it was one of three, the first being at 6 months. This looked quite an interesting suggestion. On first look, it actually looked a very good one when it looked at the benchmarking compared with the current Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 as well as benchmarking against the Resource Management Act with the date of 6 months around consenting. There was also a comparison made around the Crown Minerals Act with extending a mining permit around the 6-month mark. But where it came unstuck was around the need for 140 days, which is the statutory time frame for the Environmental Protection Agency consideration and, of course, appeals and objections—140 days did not fit into the 6 months. Twelve months did seem quite a good period of time as well but possibly a bit too long, so the select committee settled for the 9-month period for the time frame for the application for marine consent to be submitted, which would allow for the full 140-day statutory time frame as well as 15 days allowed for appeals and objections.

We did have five submissions and two of these were heard orally. We had Frack Free Kapiti and Beyond, and they thought this seemed to be offering operators an open-ended time frame. This seemed to be a theme that came through a lot of the discussions. Also, allowing existing operators to continue activities that might need to be mitigated against came through too. I would make reference to this National Government bringing in this Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act entirely for this reason: to regulate where previously there was no regulation.

Having an open-ended time frame is important because something that Kiwis value—and our colleagues over in the Green Party would suggest it is only them and their members who have the best interests of the environment at heart, but protecting, supporting, and enabling the environment is actually intrinsic to every Kiwi. It is intrinsic to every New Zealander. It is right to have an ability that is somewhat open-ended for any New Zealander who feels like they would like to make a submission around this marine consent to be heard. I welcome that, and I think that is very good. It is very good for accessibility. It is very good for transparency, and it is fantastic for public involvement, as all New Zealanders want to protect their environment for the future and for their children.

There was an issue around the flexibility of section 162, which provided a real uncertainty for investment for these petroleum operators but also around business continuity. We heard from one of the submitters who was supporting the industry, the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand, which was representing petroleum operators, other stakeholders, and individuals involved in the sector. I must say that at the end of the day I think the association had a leadership role that possibly it did not enact. So overall it is a great bill and I support it to the Committee. Thank you.

I rise to take a call in this debate, the second reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I have been listening very carefully to the contributions from both sides of the House. I think that the folks at home might be forgiven for not knowing who to blame as to why we are actually here tonight. I am here to tell you that it is the Government’s fault. It is absolutely the Government’s fault. It was told when the original Act was passed that we would be back in this House fixing it up. It could very well be called the “Fix It Up Bill” because that is why we are here right now to pass this legislation—to make it the best that it can be, because when it was first brought to this House it was not. We have heard kōrero in this House tonight that points the blame at the industry as well, to Shell Todd Oil Services. I do not think any business should be blamed for operating within the law that exists. I do not think it can be blamed for why this amendment bill is now required. It was acting totally within the law as it stands right now and that is why it needs to be changed.

It is not the first time we have had to debate bills in this House that have come back. There were 34 bills in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) earlier in this Parliament and there have been others as well. This Government is creating a little legacy for itself I think. It is a legacy that says we did not get it right the first time because we rushed it through the House and now we have brought it back here to fix it up. Labour will be supporting this bill because of that fact. We cannot afford for the Māui Gas platform to shut down while the Government gets its act together. That is not going to work for our economy. That is not going to work for the jobs that Joanne Hayes in her contribution talked about. I can tell you that in the meetings I have had in my electorate in Taranaki, people there are very worried in the oil industry. There have been a number of job losses in this sector and I think these kinds of measures that we have to bring back to the House only serve to highlight that there are problems out in the regions. In a meeting that I had along with a number of my colleagues in New Plymouth on Friday last, those sorts of issues were raised with us. It is not the best use of time in this House. We could be debating much more important issues if the Government had got this Act right in the first place.

This bill, which is a lot better than the bill that was presented for first reading—and I want to acknowledge the work done by all of the members of the select committee in improving this beyond measure. Now we have a situation that can work. It can work for the industry and it can certainly work for employees who might be worried about their jobs. They might be worried because if this legislation were not here, then the Māui Gas platform might just shut down for days or weeks waiting for an application to be processed. I do not know if there are going to be objections, but certainly with these procedures a 9-month window for applications to be processed should have been included in the bill in the first place.

Our economy, the New Zealand economy, would do a lot better if we could get these procedures to be much more succinct in the first instance. Our international reputation—people around the world are surely looking at us and thinking: “What on earth are they doing? Why didn’t they get it right in the first instance?”. We find ourselves here and I cannot help but compare it to other things that are happening or not happening with the Government. I think it just shows that the Government is out of touch and I think it shows that the Government is arrogant.

I have to agree with the comments from the New Zealand First member Ron Mark when he raised the issue and compared it to what was happening in terms of housing and Ngāti Whātua, whom I met with last week as well. They are very concerned with these exact issues—that you could have a set of rules or set of principles that you might want to uphold for a piece of legislation like this one, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill here, which we are debating here, but you can have a different set of rules for someone else. The feedback that I get from my constituents around issues such as this is that it is just not fair. So I really encourage the members opposite to think really carefully about some of these bills that they rush through the House. This one is a prime example and I think there might be more. I think it is really important that we voice those concerns on behalf of our constituents.

I will talk a bit more about Shell Todd Oil Services, which owns and operates the Māui Gas platform. As I understand it, the company applied for the marine consent but there is just not enough time for that to be processed. This piece of legislation is about providing more time, basically, from my point of view—more time for a process that was flawed in the first instance. So I wonder whether this is not the last time that this Act is going to be amended. I think, from what I understand, that there are other instances as well that could cause this to be reviewed in the future. In spite of the concerns that we might have about what will happen with this Act in the future, it is better bill than it was at the first reading and that is why we will support this bill. Thank you.

Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. I am pleased to be the final speaker in the second reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill 2015. I want to thank the submitters, I want to thank the officials, and I want to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee members, in particular our chair, Scott Simpson, and his able deputy chair, Todd Muller.

Over the last two readings there has been a lot of discussion, a lot of toing and froing. The Opposition has its role; the Government has its role. Out of that we have heard words like “flexibility”, “consequences”, “specified time frames”, “world-leading legislation”—all of that. That is where I want to start. The original legislation we are proposing to amend is the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. This is a very, very significant piece of legislation in the history of New Zealand’s environmental management. Quite simply, the passing of that Act marked the first time we had ever had legislation requiring that the environmental effects of economic activities in our exclusive economic zone be actually monitored.

I have heard speeches from members on that side of the House, particularly from the last speaker, Adrian Rurawhe, denigrating that particular legislation. He is quite wrong. The members opposite have tried to claim throughout the readings of this bill that this is not true. They have tried to claim that it is not true. It is obviously quite difficult for them to accept that we have a better record on the environment than they do. They like to claim the moral high ground—the moral high ground—when it comes to the environment, and they do not like it when the evidence tells a completely different story. That original legislation, which I have just given an overview of, is very, very significant.

For my next point I want to come to the actual amendments of the bill. My learned colleague from Waimakariri, Matt Doocey, has actually presented a great overview of what the amendments are. Basically, in the end, though, looking at the amendments, they are quite minor but very, very important. We all agree it is somewhat disappointing that Shell Todd Oil Services did not apply earlier to prevent this ever being an issue. We accept that. Some of the submitters to the bill suggested that Shell Todd Oil Services should bear the natural consequences of this. But I am pleased, and I think we should all be pleased, with the fact that Shell Todd Oil Services has been granted the consent but is subject to a period for appeals to be lodged on points of law. But this bill makes it absolutely clear that operations can continue while any such appeals are heard, and that, again, is very significant.

There is more than just a company to think of here. Shutting down the Māui gasfield would interrupt 26 percent of the gas supply to New Zealand families and businesses, and it would have a major detrimental effect on our economy. In saying that, I think that most reasonable New Zealanders would agree that this is sufficient reason for us to act, and that is exactly what we are doing here. We cannot and will not let a technical correction such as this stand in the way of households and businesses that need the resources so they can carry out their normal daily and business activities.

I am not only a “brown blue”; I am also very proud to be a Bluegreen.

💬 Hon Member: A what?

I am very proud to be a Bluegreen because the Bluegreen team supports—we have supported and we are supporting—the first Government to properly manage the oceans that make our exclusive economic zone happen. This, again, is a significantly vital asset to New Zealand, both an environmental asset and an economic one.

It is shameful that that party opposite promised to introduce a proper regulatory regime in 1999 and did absolutely nothing. It did nothing to act on that promise, for 9 years. It is understandable that members opposite have tried to claim that they have a regulatory regime in place for our oceans. They are desperate to try to paint the previous Government with some kind of environmental credibility. But here is a lesson for that side of the House. It is fine to talk about something a lot, but when you look back on 9 long years and see no actual achievements, you realise—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Come back to the bill.

—that the doing does count. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This Government promised to improve the management of our oceans, and we followed it up with the introduction of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf environmental legislation in our first term. The legislation has been a huge step forward in our environmental management and a first for New Zealand. It brought us into line with international best practice and ensured that we can continue to benefit economically from the exclusive economic zone while preserving our environment for future generations.

I come back to this bill and the reflection on what this Government is doing. We all know—and that is why we have cross-party kotahitaka, togetherness, on this bill—and we all understand, particularly this Government, that our natural environment is our greatest asset. National leads the way by saying that successful economic and environmental policies must go hand in hand. This truly reflects the essence of why we need to amend this legislation. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Bill read a second time.