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

I am happy to take a call on this very short piece of legislation, which actually only has four clauses but does something very important. Before I get under way with my speech, I would like to acknowledge the work that the Local Government and Environment Committee has done on this bill. And I would like to acknowledge the work of the chair of that select committee, Scott Simpson, on this, because I think, actually, this legislation that we are here debating in the House, which Labour does support, is actually an example of how a select committee can have a very good influence on a piece of legislation and can improve legislation that comes before it. Although this is a very short piece of legislation, there is one clause of substance, that being clause 4, which amends section 162 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Act. What this bill does, in effect, is it allows for the continuation of oil and gas operations for four specific operators that were in existence before the legislation was passed, in terms of the exclusive economic zone legislation that was passed in 2013, both while they lodge their applications and while there may be appeals against those applications.

So what we are here doing is actually playing fix-up, again. We are playing fix-up on a piece of legislation where the primary piece of legislation needed to be sent back to the select committee for a major piece of redrafting. That piece of legislation then came before this House, in the previous Parliament, with a 14-page Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister, because so many changes needed to be made to what was a very flawed piece of legislation. One month after the passage of that legislation, there was a 37-page amendment bill in the Marine Legislation Bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Clause 1, title.

Yes, it is clause 1, that is right, and that is the title clause, which is around the exclusive economic zone. So it is the “Exclusive Economic Zone Fix-up Bill” that we are talking about here, the piece of legislation that has had to play fix-up on the primary legislation, and not for the first time, as I was cataloguing there. We had the 37 pages of amendments to the Marine Legislation Bill, brought in by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. But here we are again, with the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill—or the “Exclusive Economic Zone Fix-up Bill”, as I prefer to call it. Here we are yet again, because if we were not doing this fix-up bill, what we would be doing is facing the closure of one of our main sources of natural gas at the end of this month. This legislation is required because this Government did not put in place adequate transitional arrangements into the principal legislation to allow for existing operators to transition into a regulatory regime. It would not exactly be rocket science to think: we are putting in place a new regulatory regime, we have got some existing operators, and we need to bring them inside the regulatory framework. Instead, that was just left silent, and there was a big gaping hole that could have led to huge economic costs to the country.

We in the Labour Party absolutely believe in the need for a managed transition away from fossil fuels, but simply shutting down a platform, with no planning around it because the Government has made a mistake in legislation, is not the way to do that. This is fix-up legislation, and whose bungle are we fixing this time? Because when we came to look at this legislation, this, again, was poorly drafted. So we are here doing a Nick Smith fix-up in the Chamber and the Committee. I guess the one thing we can be grateful for is that there were no provisions in the legislation for either power transfer stations or cemeteries to be put on the Māui platform, because that is the kind of bungle that Minister can make. We are here because we are working on the very good work that the select committee has done, and because of the fact that we would have had very open-ended legislation. So, in talking to clause 1 of this bill, it being the exclusive economic zone fix-up legislation—if it were not for the work of the select committee, we would have been back here in only a very short period of time.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I will leave my substantive contribution to clause 4, which is, basically, really the only page of text in the whole legislation. But clause 1 deals with the title. I would like to propose a new title for the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I would like to call it the “One Law for Oil Bill”, because, although I have got the greatest respect for Miss Woods and although it is a further example of the Government not doing its homework and of poor legislative drafting, really the blame has to fall squarely at the feet of Shell Todd Oil Services. So perhaps we should be calling it the “Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Shell Todd Oil’s Fix-up) Amendment Bill”.

Let us just quickly go through the chronology to explain why I am suggesting these titles. Although the legislation was poorly drafted and was rushed through, blame has to be placed at the feet of the very company that this legislation—using the awesome power of this Parliament to introduce legislation and pass an Act of Parliament—benefits: a single company, Shell Todd Oil Services. This was a company involved in the select committee process on the original legislation, a company that was heavily involved in lobbying and seeing that legislation passed, a company that knew full well the provisions of the legislation, a company that Cabinet decided on 8 December 2014 to pass this legislation for and to bring in this amendment bill for. Yet it was not until 15 December, more than a month later, that Shell Todd Oil Services finally got around to applying for its marine consent.

This amendment bill simply retrospectively allows this company to continue its existing activity now that its permit has expired, in case there are any appeals. We know it has been a controversial application locally, but the fact is that this company ran straight to Cabinet, ran straight to Ministers, asking them to pass an Act of Parliament to allow it to continue its activity before it even got a marine consent application in. So it is disappointing this company did not appear before the Local Government and Environment Committee, but I would like to echo the comments of Miss Woods that it was a constructive select committee process. I would like to acknowledge the chair and all the members, because the bill has been substantively improved since the first reading. Kia ora.

May I just briefly pay my respects to two gentlemen who passed away, whose funerals earlier today members of this House participated in or attended: firstly, Jerry Collins, who was an iconic son of P-Town; and, of course, Peter Conway, a former representative of the Council of Trade Unions. Both of them were quite passionate about this country of ours, and both of them lived life to the fullest. I want to join with others and simply pay my respects to them.

This bill here has only four clauses, and it received only five submissions from the public. As to the first clause, the title clause, which the Government is asking us to debate, no one made a submission. I think it might be fitting if the Government moved a motion at some stage for us to debate the whole piece of legislation as one part. I hate doing that, but it just seems like we are having to try to fix up the mistakes of this Government time and time again. So I just put that for the Government to consider.

I do want to say that of the people who made submissions on this bill, three of them were opposed to the bill in totality, one of them did not show any indication one way or the other, and the other one was the association of the industry, which was in favour of the bill. There was a submitter who caught my attention. This submitter raised other issues that relate to the title clause, and her name is Tanea Tangaroa. She simply said: “We are not happy that Shell Todd will possibly be granted another perpetual licence to explore further wells and drill in an area that is inhabited by the last 55 Maui dolphins.” So you could say a potential title for this particular bill is one that acknowledges that 55 Māui’s dolphins are put at risk. Although the Government would look at only one side of the argument—the economics of this proposal—I think there is a much broader issue, and a title about putting at risk the 55 Māui’s dolphins would broaden out the debate so that it included other issues that are of concern to people.

The reason, I think, why no one made a submission on the title clause is that the public were not given sufficient time to take note that this bill was coming through. This is about the third or fourth time that the Government has had to change the original Act that it introduced in 2012. The reason why those five people did not make any submission on the title clause was that they could not figure out whether the Government was coming or going with the way that it has amended this particular bill over and over again.

I put it to the Committee, and I say to the Minister, that we should be debating the substantive clause, which is clause 4, because no one made any submissions on clause 1, clause 2, or clause 3. It was the substantive clause—clause 4—that the submissions paid attention to, and I think we need to debate clause 4 significantly in the time that we have got to debate this particular clause.

The title, Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill, is just a mouthful of a title, and it should give an indication to our public about what on earth it means. Often it causes suspicion if we are not clear in the way that we write legislation. It causes suspicion. People ask what the Government is trying to hide when the title of a bill does not give clarity about what we are trying to do. As my colleague Dr Megan Woods has said, in essence we have attempted to work with the Government to help it right the wrongs and the mistakes it has made in this particular part of legislation. We have said that, based on the amended change that the select committee made and brought back to this House, we are content to pass the legislation. But, I have to say now, looking at that clause, that the Government needs to be clearer in future about what it wants to do.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I just remind the member of rules around repetition. We have heard this I do not know how many times now.

Well, I will just make it brief then—I will just make it brief. All I am saying is that the Government prides itself on being open and transparent—any Government should—and one of the very first things that an open and transparent Government ought to do is to be clear about its legislation, and the first thing that it ought to do is be clear about the title. The present title gives no indication to the general public—particularly those who are interested in what we do and want to hold this Government to account—as to what this bill does. So I would move—maybe I should not move. I suggest to the Government that we debate the substantive clause, which is clause 4. Thank you.

Clause 1 agreed to.

I seek leave for all remaining clauses of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill to be considered in one debate, with the questions on the clauses to be taken separately at its conclusion.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave for that purpose is sought. Is there any objection? There is not. We will be debating clauses 2 to 4 as one motion.

Clauses 2 to 4